Posted on 04/22/2002 2:48:37 PM PDT by A. Pole
April 2, 2002
WITH THIS RING I THEE SODOMIZE by Thomas Fleming
Kudos to Jonathan Rauch for his letter-perfect parody of liberal smugness. Writing in the latest Atlantic, Rauch waxes Polonian as he blames conservatives for undermining marriage:
Those who worry about the example gays would set by marrying
should be much more worried about the example gays are already
setting by not marrying . . . At a time when marriage needs all the
support and participation it can get, homosexuals are pleading to
move beyond cohabitation. We want the licenses, the vows, the
rings, the honeymoons, the anniversaries, the benefits, and, yes,
the responsibilities and the routines. And who is telling us just to
shack up instead? Self-styled friends of matrimony.
Ironic, isn’t it? The very words he uses--"ironic" and "sad." How ironic that people who are revolted by homosexuality are so short sighted not to apply the sacred term "marriage" to practices that they regard as obscene. Robert Frost once described the liberal as someone "unwilling to take his own side in an argument." Some of this reluctance to defend their own point of view stems from the liberals’ insistence upon appropriating other people’s positions. Liberals are always telling conservatives what a "real conservative" should believe, but Rauch has gone all the way, instructing "social conservatives," who are for the most part practicing Christians and Jews that to be true to their values they must endorse homosexual marriage and set aside the traditional Christian (and conservative) view of homosexuality as an unnatural vice. Because, you see, to be really conservative, you have to be--what else?--liberal. The same goes for being really Christian or really old-fashioned. And if you think this makes sense, you are really dumb.
The policies promoted by stupid liberals destroyed marriage, and now another set of stupid liberals want to take the next step. Let them. Let them redefine marriage to cover significant relationships between lesbians and their cocker spaniels. All they will do is to teach Christians and conservatives not to look to the government for moral support. If I were a young "social conservative" contemplating marriage, I think I would forego the usual government dog license and content myself with the vows exchanged in church. These people have nothing to say to us about anything, and I would not believe them if they told me the right time while I was staring at my own watch.
If conservatives could ever get over the idea that they are running the country, if they could wake up to the fact that their enemies are destroying everything good, decent, and true, they might begin to understand that there is no point to compromising with the left. If we are true to our principles, they will attack us, and they will continue to attack until we cry uncle--as most conservatives do, fairly early in the game.
We don’t have to be rude or call them names. We can tell them, ever so politely, that ours is the party of Christ and theirs is the party of Anti-Christ. We create; they destroy; we remember; they forget. We speak truth; they lie--all the time and about everything. Once you are clear in your own mind, you are free to go about your business with the same cheerful spirit as the Christians displayed in the days of Diocletian.
Copyright 2002, www.ChroniclesMagazine.org
928 N. Main St., Rockford, IL 61103
Well said my little perverted friend. Except, by your illogical argument, then “gay” marriages are by definition “different” too sweetheart. Marriage is reserved for those who can procreate; those who pretend an anus is a vagina only produce dirt babies. The sad thing is, for every justification you can make for the practice of perversion, the exact same can be made for incest, bestiality and your new favorite…pedophilia. Provided it’s a loving, monogamous, consensual, committed relationship of course. Now go play with your Gerbils and leave the good people alone.
That's because they think they've already won that battle and that ONLY the most Neanderthal of Neanderthals dares to continue to maintain--in the face of Katie Couric's dismay at their Neanderthalness--that homosexuality itself has anything morally wrong with it.
They're playing the old game of ignoring the obvious when the obvious can safely be ignored. And it can, it can. After all, acting like a Neanderthal will get you the opprobrium of Perky Katie, and nothing is more humiliating than that.
I've been thinking the same thing. When the time comes, a state marriage licence won't add any more obligation, at least not if you take marriage seriously in the first place, as I do. If you don't, then there's no point anyway. Why not just live together?
What if the states collapses or get replaced (as it happened in the history many times). The state marriages dissapear but the religious marriages remain. The religion exists before the state.
Please don't presume to tell me 'what I know'.
To separate the arguments for a moment, I don't believe that the state has any business sanctioning any marriage. True marriage is a covenant with God: "What God has joined let no man put asunder". Society - government up until now -has seen the value in protecting children by protecting the family unit by supporting marriage. Two-parent families, mother and father, were perceived as having value to society overall.
The liberals did away with that by negating the role of the father with their reckless 1960s welfare programs.
What the gays are looking for is access to the largess available only with government blessing. They want special protections for their 'class' (witness the laughable- if it weren't so serious - notion that there is a such thing as a "hate crime").
But more than that they want to get a foot in the door, to define deviancy down. The issue here, as I see it, is one of boundaries, and the question is "What are we as a society are willing to accept?"
If men and men are 'sanctioned' in 'marriage', then why not men and dogs? What not women and horses? I'm damn serious. Are you going to tell me it's because an animal can't consent?!
And why not men and boys? That idea is not me being sarcastic: it's the agenda of Peter Singer and his crowd. They say it's legitimate, a matter of 'choice'.
Why don't you tell me: What's your bottom line on unacceptable perversion?
Don’t be stupid, deference is given for the possibility.
You other two are illustrating why the term "common sense" is no longer useful.
Dan
Clearly you possess a certain kind of genius, one that allows you to read things not written.
My point was that marriage is reserved for a man and a woman, and whether the state sanctions the union is unimportant to people who believe in the sanctity of the union.
The gay marriage issue is a play for defining deviancy down, and for trivializing, mocking, and destroying the beliefs of those they opppose. It has nothing to do with betterment of society.
If you want to try to negate my points by playing some wacko race card, hey, it's a free country.
This is a fine example of condoning the perversion. The reason this act has been tolerated is because of the passiveness of the populace.
"Everything is alright...anything goes...if it feels good, do it"!
I say you're either against homosexuality, or your a homo supporter...there is no middle ground on this one.
SR
Not very bright are you? There is no need for any teasting because the possibility exists/existed. Same for the elderly, for the genetically disabled and any other scenario you can come up with for a man and woman, “DEFERENCE” is given. Those that practice perversion cannot make babies in their rectums, the possibility never existed.
And a what age does a child become an "adult"? Some of your libertine bretheren and sisters here routinely suggest ages as young as 12 if not younger (and vigorously deny supporting pedophilia, too). Are you comfortable with that? Why is your consent-based view superior to their amoral consent-based view?
And how about "marriage" between a man and his sheep? Why does consent even enter into it? A man requires no consent to kill and eat a sheep, why should it matter that the sheep cannot vocally and intelligibly consent to being his significant other in a marriage relationship?
When you lack a religious foundation for morality and use consent or lack thereof as your sole criteria for determining the rightness or wrongness of a particular decison, you wind up confused beyond all reason. It's the atheist libertarian way.
Most of the Jews I know would take offense at that, and I don't really think it would make them want to convert.
So what? The militant pederasts are anti-Christian and believing Christians are opposed to the militant pederasty.
To be Christian is to be in the "party of Christ" ie to believe that the Lord Jesus is Christ/Messiah, if it offends some Jews this is their problem. Most of Jews deny that Jesus is Messiah and this could be offensive to Christians. This is the main difference between Talmudic Judaism and Christianity that Jews are waiting for a another and different Christ.
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.