Posted on 08/14/2010 2:58:47 PM PDT by DesertRenegade
Looks like Glenn Beck could have benefited from attending the AFTAH Truth Academy. Beck is a doing incredibly important work in helping to save America from the misnamed ”progressives” — but evidently he is woefully ignorant about the real threat that homosexual activism poses to this nation and our precious freedoms. Memo: to Glenn: people of faith — like Matt Barber and Julea Ward — already have been fired or discriminated against for defending the historic Judeo-Christian sexual ethic. And this began happening before “same-sex marriage” became the dominant issue in this cultural debate. The oppression will only get worse if homosexual “marriage” is legalized nationally through an activist court ruling.
Yeah. I hear ya. I’m in NY state.
“Fantasy world.”
My faith’s definition of marriage isn’t a fantasy. It bats a 1000 in reality, no mattter what the gov’t thinks marriage is or isn’t.
I voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman in my state. I doubt if it will matter eventually, but I will vote the same if it comes up again. However, a man and a woman who claim they are married soley because they have piece of paper from the gov’t aren’t married in my faith. Likewise two folks married in my faith who say they aren’t married because the gubberment says they aren’t are still married. No matter what the gov’t says about it, or what penalties they decide to inflict at the urging of the homosexualists. The gov’t doesn’t define marriage in my faith, despite what gov’t says and have conditioned many to believe, to the joy of the homosexualists.
Freegards
This post is mine from another thread.
I worked at Warner Bros. for 2 years, and we all know that industry is a magnet for homos.
I can tell you the following..
1) Homosexuals spend an inordinate amount of their time attempting to “recruit” others to their lifestyle, and I am certain that includes underage kids.
2) Homosexuals do not think about everyday things like the rest of us do, and they usually are colored in some way through the prism of homosexuality.
3) Most of them are leftists, and have no use for religion, morals or ehics. Their idea of a fun society is more conducive to Sodom & Gommorah than Judeo-Christian America.
4) Most of them tend to be very aggressive if they set their eyes on a target. I ran into one at WB who I had to punch in the face, after repeated warnings from me to knock off the talk.
If homos are allowed an equal footing with the other 98% of us, I can guarantee you our society will crumble. My 2 cents.
I pinged you to DBeer’s comment above about marriage and social or government recognition.
Although it was implicit in the items you correctly listed, you forgot to mention that they are FIXATED on and OBSESSED with genitals — theirs and those of others.
Actually, I really don’t care what these folks do in private but they keep pushing to be permitted to do in public in any setting what a heterosexual couple would be arrested for doing. And if you’ve seen some of the images coming from the frequent San Francisco gay festivities, they are doing it and the alleged authorities don’t seem to do a thing about it.
I was hoping that was covered in my number 2, but I agree.
2) Homosexuals do not think about everyday things like the rest of us do, and they usually are colored in some way through the prism of homosexuality”
Most of them seem to want to destroy the family unit. If they stayed in the closet, I wouldn,t care.
? Yep, you did. I just responded to your post to me, FRiend.
Like I said, you have nothing to worry about. The state isn’t getting out of marriage. I’ll just depend on my faith to define marriage, instead of whatever bizarre formulation gov’t decides to condition and force folks to accept.
Freegards
A reference that you and others may find useful -- F. A. Hayek -think of it as another arrow in the quiver of rational sound arguments that defend what is morally right and historically proven successful against the morally devoid elite leftists who wish to experiment and innovate based upon what they 'feel' should be right and historically has failed repeatedly.
Those who would be God and create a Utopoia on earth always follow the same path -they acquire power, to free the masses they enslave the individuals, to lift up those who fail they knock down those who succeed, they become evil pursuing a means justifies the ends noble ideological cause -pursuing heaven on earth they create hell on earth..
Some may be failiar with the noble prize winner F.A. Hayek who wrote a book I recommend to any free market conservative --he is noted for his writings on the inherent good associated with the free market system and the inherent evil associated with socialism. It is no coincidence that underlying legitimate individual freedom premised not only his arguments on the value, benefits and sound reason for the economic free market but as well arguments regarding the value, benefits and sound reason for the moral free market e.g. society -its historically proven sucessful and historically observed traditions and institutions...
Hayek on Tradition(40 Page PDF Document)
-excerpt:
Traditional morality is rejected today as commonly as it was once taken for granted. And if the specific content of that morality, especially where it touches on matters of sexuality, is widely regarded with contempt, the meta-ethical notion that one ought to respect a moral code precisely because it is traditional gets even worse treatment: It is held to be beneath contempt. Modern educated people take it to be a sign of their modernity and education that they refuse to accept the legitimacy of any institution or code of behavior, however widespread, ancient, and venerable, which has not been rationally justified. Traditional morality stands doubly damned in their eyes: It is not rationally justifiable, and its adherents fail even to attempt to justify it so. The traditional moralist, they take it, is a slave not merely to the “conventional wisdom” but to the conventional wisdom of people long dead. He is in the grip of irrationality, superstition, and ignorance; worst of all, he is out of date.
Read it, add it to your arsenal, use it, and pass it on...
For those interested on what Hayek says about big government socialism: Readers' Digest Condensed Version of the Road to Serfdom (in PDF format(40 Page PDF Document)
Glen is an opportunist and a quasi conservative who found his niche in hosting a conservative radio and TV show, so I'm not surprised that he came out in support of same-sex marriage. Rush is against same-sex marriage, and has consistently maintained that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Rush isn't a sell out, but he is his own man.
Rush doesn't mind civil unions which, I don't agree with him in that regard. However, he is against gay marriage and has spent almost his entire show attacking Judge Walker's ruling in favor of gay marriage at a time when many Republicans and conservative are silent about this issue, but Rush has the fortitude and courage to speak up and to call that homosexual judge out.
Since you guys don't seem to know Rush's position on the subject, I will post some relevant parts of the relevant transcript here.
Excerpt:
This federal judge yesterday, this decision, Prop 8, California, has just put people over the edge, and all of these decisions are coming one after another from all corners of the federal government. It's as if we have absolutely no say in what is going on all around us. Decisions are being made for us, in lieu of us and imposed on us. We sit here, we mind our own business; we're doing everything we can to try to muddle our way through the minefield that this country has become. We're trying to live our lives, follow the rules. We have these institutions, the federal judiciary now run by leftist nutjobs picking us apart. And, folks, we have been predicting this is exactly what would become of the judiciary. This is insurance against election losses for the Democrats and for the left, pollute the judiciary, put a bunch of liberal activists, not judges, on the court, and impose your will by fiat, by way of law. This is tyranny. It was easy to predict. It's tough as hell to stop it. The court's now just for the most part extensions of the Democratic Party.I don't know what's happened to Ted Olson. He's one of the lawyers in this case out in California along with David Boies. I have no clue. Ted Olson used to be one of us. He used to be anti-judicial activism. I don't know. As with abortion, liberals are lying about the Constitution. They dress up their opinions as if they are law and legitimate, then they impose them. The issue is who gets to make these decisions. The Constitution lays out the process, but the Constitution more and more is becoming irrelevant to the people who are running this country.
You had one judge. You had seven million California voters. This is not the first time California voters have been told that what they did was unconstitutional.
I don't care whether he's taken pains to disguise or advertise his orientation. What we have here is a results-oriented liberal judicial judge -- not even a judge, this is an activist -- he has taken 136 or whatever it is, 138 pages to write of his own outlook rather than a fair and faithful reading of the Constitution's text. This is a personal political preference, a personal policy preference of this judge -- he's not the first -- that's now been codified into law. This will be appealed. He even built in his automatic stay in this knowing it was going to be appealed. It will go to the Ninth Circus, don't know how soon it will get there. It will go to the US Supreme Court. Anthony Kennedy will be the target. And this judge in his opinion doesn't name Kennedy but makes it plain he knows where this is going. Kennedy is the swing vote on a 5-4 court. However Kennedy goes on this case is how this case is going to end up, given that there are no further changes in the court between now and the time this case gets there. You watch all of the attention that will be given and focused on Justice Anthony Kennedy.
It has basically come down to this: These totalitarians, statists, Marxists, socialists, whatever you want to call them in whatever place they inhabit are going to advance their agenda regardless of the law, regardless of the traditions and institutions that have defined this country since its inception. For them the result is all that matters, and the more chaos the better. In fact, I would go so far as to say that this ruling is not really even about gay marriage. I mean, that's the end result of it, but what this ruling is really all about and the reason it's being celebrated is that once again a minority -- and this is a political minority-- is able to savor the fact that they've stuck it to the majority again. That's really what this is about. That's the end result here.
It doesn't matter if it's gay marriage. There's going to be another issue like this that totally violates the traditions, institutions and the Constitution and the law, and they are going to have the same kind of ruling, same kind of test case, and they're going to celebrate it because once again they are destroying the country. They are destroying the fabric and that's why they're celebrating. It's hard to understand, hard to get your arms around, people born here who hate it; people born in this country who despise it. That's propelling all of this. They've either been raised, educated, or they were just DNA born with this hatred. However they have it, they've got it, and their aim is to tear it all apart. And the more you get upset, the more depressed you get, the angrier you get, the happier they are. This is what they want to create. Obama's doing a great job of it.
We hear a lot of talk from the Obama administration about "civil rights." Everything is turned into a civil rights issue -- equal rights, equal protection rights, whatever. Endless things are done against us in the name of civil rights. But what is a more fundamental right -- a fundamental civil right in our system of government in a supposed republic -- than the right to have our voice heard, to have our vote respected? You want to talk about civil rights? It doesn't matter what the people of California vote. If the left doesn't like it, they will use the bastardization of power in this country to reverse it. What about our vote being respected?
The Fourteenth Amendment was never, ever meant to address sex, gender, orientation. The Fourteenth Amendment's where they are going to talk about equal protection. There's no historical evidence anywhere to endorse this judge's decision, but he does it. The Ninth Circuit will be no better. The Heritage Foundation in its Morning Bell blog today: "The Obama Elite Versus the American People.
The Obama elite versus the American people. "Specifically Judge Walker overturned the California Marriage Protection Act after concluding, as a matter of fact, that the majority of Californians who voted to protect marriage were bigots who had no rational basis to define marriage on their own terms." He essentially said that marriage exists because heterosexuals have been homophobic and practicing discrimination since the beginning of time. "Here are just some of the 'facts' Judge Walker found: * Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians. * The campaign to pass Proposition 8 relied on stereotypes to show that same-sex relationships are inferior to opposite-sex relationships."
Judge Vaughn Walker, California, did not just slap down the will of seven million voters. Those seven million voters were put on trial, a kangaroo court where everything was stacked against them. He wanted to make it a show trial. He wanted cameras. US Supreme Court said no way. Seven million California voters, your vote just wasn't overturned, you were on trial and now marriage has been codified as homophobia. According to this judge, the only reason marriage is between a man and a woman is because heterosexuals have been discriminating against gays because they're homophobic. So marriage, if this is upheld, marriage is simply codified homophobia. And the purpose of this, of course, is to just rip to shreds the traditions and institutions that have defined the United States of America. This "trial," Judge Walker, Judge Vaughn Walker, this "trial" -- and I put that in quotes -- was truly bizarre. But most importantly the sponsors of the initiative ended up being on trial. The voters of Prop 8 ended up being on trial. Link
Has any other conservative voiced as strong opinion in defense of marriage as Rush has?
Beck is wrong about a lot of things, least among them is “gay marriage”. I think he places too much emphases on the religious side of things when that is in fact a long term war that we simply don’t have time to win.
The issue of Gay marriage is of immediate important but only in so far as how the Federal courts have been able to impose it upon us, as that is by far not the only thing they have shoved down our throats via the same method.
The issue of absolute Federal court supremacy robing us of our written constitutions.
But to fight this issue we have to fight most of the legal profession who have been indoctrinated in this un-American self-serving system of arbitrary power for the last ~80 years.
Well, he was certainly wrong on instituting a VAT (favored it) Actually, I don't care, either, right up until the "it's picking my pocket and breaking my leg" stage. I don't support same-sex "marriage". Remember, all, Beck, like Rush, is simply an entertainer.
O’Reilly: Do you believe that gay marriage is a threat to country in any way?
Beck: A threat to the country?
O’Reilly: Yeah, is it going to harm it in anyway?
Beck: No I don’t. Will the gays come and get us?
O’Reilly: No, okay. Is it going to harm the country?
Beck: I believe that Thomas Jefferson said: “If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket what difference is it to me?
“It is a mistake to make homosexuality a political issue.”
As I understand it, homsexuality was recognised by the American Psychiatric Association as valid as a result of political pressure.... and thuggery!
And, it goes further than that. Their recognition has opened all sorts of nasty doors worldwide, including in South Africa, where gay marriage is now recognised. The powers that be here are quite happy to quote the APA in support of homosexuality - after all, everyone follows what happens in the USA, when it suits them.
“A number of years ago, a writer posited that there was a “War Against Boys” within and without the government school system. He opined that little boys were being psychologically and emotionally emasculated by millions of female teachers and others in the America of John Wayne.”
I think you are probably referring to “The War Against Boys: How misguided feminism is harming our yong men” by Christina Hoff Sommers. She also wrote “Who Stole Feminism?” about how modern feminism actually betrays women, unlike the feminists of the mid 1800’s who were looking at things like equal representation before the law, and inheritances, etc.
Once you mess with God’s ordained order, all facets of life get messed up.
I’ll care about what Glenn thinks about those things when he runs for office.
Remember: Politics-not science-decided that homosexuals are ‘normal’....
Homosexual Activists Intimidate American Psychiatric Association into Removing Homosexuality from List of Disorders
The problem is that homo sexuals would like to push their “morals on the rest of us. The Muslims would like to push their “morals” on the rest of us. The progressives would like to push their ‘morals’ on the rest of us. They are the ones pushing for government control and ‘moral” re-education. Conservatives were happy with ‘don’t ask don’t tell” and other sorts of privacy preserving freedom of conscience common sense notions.
Our erst while “progressive” friends are the ones that want to get in every-one’s heads. The progressives own the government now and the Muslims are counting on a loss of societal moral cohesion so they can move in and take slices of us a little at a time. The progressives think they can use the Muslims as a tool to weaken the conservative judeo-christian priciples and mindsets that built this nation, then at some point take control of the Muslims and bring them under their atheistic umbrella (but they will find that will back-fire). What Muslims hate just as much as Christians and jews are atheists and libertines progressives. Progressives like Bloomberg are Muslims’ useful idiots.
Technically, we have a government that exists by the collective peoples’ consent. Your notion that our government can be kept out of the the “moral/social equation” and stay neutral in those issues belies the reality that the government in the end reflects the voters will and collective morality. Granted, as in the case of Obama, he was able to psychologically present himself as a blank slate so that millions could ascribe their wishes, hopes, and dreams upon him, so that many of these folks voted for him out their internal narcissism. Many of these folks are now disillusioned.
A moral/social civil war has already begun; indeed begun 80 yers ago by the progressives themselves. Now it is in danger of becoming hot!
I used to listen to Glenn in his earlier days on talk radio, and even then, his libertarian leaning left me cold. He would often digress into inane tangents, and I decided I could only afford to direct my attentions elsewhere.
Great quote from the Gipper, but let’s keep in mind that he more than perhaps anybody else in CA helped to undermine traditional marriage through his signing “no fault divorce” into law as Governor. I hate to say it but the homosexual lobby’s criticism of us conservatives has a good deal of truth - it was we who first sought to “redefine” marriage out of existence, first through our mass acceptance of artificial birth control and then with no fault divorce. Let’s face it: a sterile sexual relationship that is terminable at will at the whim of either party sounds alot like your basic gay hook-up. We did it to ourselves before “they” even came into the picture.
Along the same lines, our Founders only wanted natural-born citizens to obtain the office of President -- so they could "be trusted to operate for the good of the culture based on its history or traditions."
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.