Skip to comments.Why conservatives are abandoning the 'gay' issue
Posted on 08/17/2010 1:50:23 PM PDT by Maelstorm
"Do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?" 1 Corinthians 6:19 NKJV
Sex is sacred.
For millennia, this biblical principle was the bedrock moral value of the Western World.
The mysterious portal through which human beings enter this world, sex was to be reserved exclusively for a man and a woman joined permanently by marriage vows, and all other forms and circumstances of sexual expression were forbidden locked away, as it were, in a sort of Pandoras Box, heavily guarded by the sentinels of Judeo-Christian Civilization. Confining sex to marriage was universally seen as essential to strong marital unions and secure families, and thus to the very fabric of civilization itself.
However, this strict but divinely inspired and life-protecting moral code after enabling century after century of dazzling societal evolution in the Western world has unraveled in our own lifetimes.
The change first emerged into stark public view during the 1960s under the banner of "sexual liberation" and "gay liberation." While the public was distracted by colorful spectacles of youthful rebellion, psychedelic drug use and the rock "invasion," just below the surface a full-bore assault on Western institutions and values particularly traditional sexual morality was taking place.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Liberals don’t believe anything is wrong. A society with that attitude will not survive.
If you believe the Bible is the word of God then you cannot be a gay rights supporter. The problem here is that many mainstream churche$$$$ not only condone same sex marriage but also allow their clergy to be gay.
This conservative is ‘picking his battles’ and sees far more destructive things going on at the hands of Obama and the Democrat majorities in the House and Senate.
Homosexuality is way down on the list of things I’m concerned about at this point. People are going to be attracted to whomever they’re attracted to. Not much you can do to stop that.
I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I’m devoting most of my energy towards driving the leftists and radicals out of the government, repealing Obamacare, stopping Cap & Trade and preserving what’s left of the country I grew up in.
You can only fight so many things at any one time...
The question is how much the government should be used to enforce moral codes.
Way too many conservatives started excusing people who had sex outside of marriage, which is just as much a sin as homosexual sex. Once you start excusing any sin, all sin is not far behind.
But that’s because too many conservatives found divorce or sexual dalliances to be convenient or desirable, and didn’t want their own actions to be considered immoral.
Who do you think it was that calibrated Obama's moral compass?Don't get caught in the trap of confusing Liberty with the fatal liberalism that substitutes the Truth with Lies - as so many have, even here on FR.Read Romans 1:25+ and pay attention to the order of precedence. What prompted the Roman's historical observation there?
Not high on your list - when Proliferation of sexual perversion was a precursor to the rise of National Socialism in Nazi Germany?
Why not? The more attention you give them, the more they want.
Pleased to meet you, you just found one. I cannot imagine caring less who my neighbor sleeps with so long as he or she obeys the law. I don't have a position I care much about on the subject of gay marriage but feel that serial divorcers probably do as much damage to the institution of marriage as gay marriage would. I also would never condone any forcible acceptance of lifestyles beyond the obvious admonishment that only those without sin should be first in line at the stone pile.
Socialist are a far bigger threat to our way of life than are Log Cabin Republicans, IMHO.
The thing is, you need a strong power base to accomplish your current goals. The power base in the American family - which will disappear with gay marriage.
Preserving traditional families first is your only chance to succeed.
If were truly set in your own mind and spirit on picking your battles in a way that excludes this issue you would not have even bothered reading this thread. The headline alone would have indicated it’s not something meaningful to you.
The fact that still are interested in this particular battle is indicated by your response. And that you responded rather than read and not respond means you have more than a residue of curiosity about the issue. The fact that you posted to warn off others must be read as really a note to yourself.
You yourself are not fortified in your opinion.
I’m just letting you see what you yourself are thinking. Thank me later.
You mean the progressive RINO crowd that pretended to be "fiscally" conservative, and obviously wasn't?The perverted jack wagons who helped systemically corrupt this nation's moral character - and imploded our financial infrastructure in the process......those Log Cabin RINOs?
Your expressed attitude is a libertarian smokescreen for those who are apathetic about homo-fascism, at best, or wholly endorse it, at worse. Press such people for the crux of the issue, and they will invariably come forward with some nonsense such that they believe in "civil unions" that give the same benefits as marriage, essentially "marriage" by another name.
You can fight many things at once, if with nothing other than your verbal protest. We must name the sin, even from the heart of the beast. But libertarians/CINO's (conservatives in name only) won't do even this, which belies their true leanings. Your refusal to fight even one facet of radical leftism invalidates your other conservative efforts to some degree.
So do you support Prop 8 or do you support the arbitrary ruling of a judge disregarding the will of the people? You don’t support hate crimes legislation? You don’t believe military personnel should be punished and schools forced to teach homosexual activist positions? This isn’t about serial divorcees but on a side note homosexuals where they are allowed marriage have a far greater rate of divorce. It isn’t even about whether you believe gays should be allowed to be “married” they can do that without legal standing already. It is about forcing through Judicial fiat and misleading activist rhetoric communities to license a thing called homosexual “marriage” which runs counter to reason.
The same methods that are use to produce socialism are used to norm homosexuality. The lies, the pseudoscience, the inaccurate picture of human sexuality. I assure you that once one believes that homosexuality is normal and acceptable they will believe and accept almost anything.
Also socialism is fed by false problems, suddenly we need to create complex programs to “protect” homosexuals and “questioning” youth. Suddenly we have to make special arrangements to appease every demand of the Homosexual activist who has suffered not a tenth of the abuse that was heaped on Ethnic and racial groups.
Gay activism and the mindset of sexual political activism in general has led to much of the mess we see our selves in.
It would do you well to spend some time researching the issue instead of parroting cowardly liberal viewpoints.
I haven't read the thread. I read the article. I expected to be attacked by nitwits like you who presume to know everything about me and what my thoughts are, based upon a stated personal opinion. And, for your information, my opinion is just as valid as anyone else's.
"The headline alone would have indicated its not something meaningful to you."
The headline, alone, is exactly why I expressed my opinion. Because Beck, Limbaugh and others don't turn red in the face and jump up and down over gay marriage means they've abandoned conservative and Christian principles and are on their way to Hell? I don't know what their reasons are for not being in full-attack mode over this, and I don't care. I expressed my opinion, and you can talk all day about what I'm thinking and what my comment means. You know what? You haven't the faintest idea, because you ain't in my head. You just like to hear yourself talk.
"The fact that still are interested in this particular battle is indicated by your response. And that you responded rather than read and not respond means you have more than a residue of curiosity about the issue."
Oh -- that makes a lot of sense. I'm curious about how up can look like down when I bend my head and look to the sky and consider that gravity is holding my feet to the ground. I'm interested in a lot of things, and I read to learn. It doesn't mean that I believe or agree with everything I read.
"The fact that you posted to warn off others must be read as really a note to yourself."
Boy, you're just filled with "facts", aren't you? I posted to express my opinion, and don't particularly care if you or anybody else agrees with it. Warn others off? Get a grip.
"You yourself are not fortified in your opinion."
Another impressive, yet empty, profundity. Just exactly what the hell is that supposed to mean? (He asked, rhetorically, because he has no intention of wasting time poring over any additional twaddle you want to throw out on the subject.)
"Im just letting you see what you yourself are thinking."
Wanna buy a few commas? You really should use one on occasion. In the meantime, I'm happy to finally know what I'm thinking. My initial thought was to say "Gee, thanks". But you told me not to...
"Thank me later."
Don't hold your breath.
To anyone else reading this: I expected to be attacked for having the temerity to express an opinion that's contrary to all of you who think you know God better than I do, and I made a promise to myself that I wouldn't waste my energy reading and debating the 'true meaning' of what I've written. This one got to me, though and I've broken that promise. But this is the only response that I'll be tendering.
I shall neither read nor write another word in this thread. So enjoy yourselves and hack away. Waste your own time and impress those who read to the end that you "really told that guy off"! You know that old expression -- "Never argue with a pig; it just frustrates you and annoys the pig."?? Bingo.
I am, indeed, "fortified" in my opinion, and am not about to be swayed by self-righteous idiots who purport to know my thoughts better than I do. You don't agree with me? Fine. We don't agree.
Heh. “Penetrated.” Heh heh.
Okay, now that I've got that out of my system,
I found this to be somewhat convicting. I'd started drifting toward a libertarian view on this, thinking, “I can't force my religion on them, or they can force theirs on me.” And it does appear that that is exactly what they are trying to do; in actuality, they are trying to violate my right to disagree with them—the author makes a beautiful Orwellian metaphor, calling this “thoughtcrime.”
He's right. It's oil and water. The two freedoms (to same sex marriage or religion) are mutually exclusive. May God deliver us.
I am not you.
“Liberals dont believe anything is wrong”
Unfortunately, extreme libertarians don’t necessarily either. They go with “as long as it is between two consenting adults.” That is why I call hardcore libertarians “libertines”
Remember: Politics-not science-decided that homosexuals are ‘normal’
Unless you'd like to argue the opposite.
First, you would be well advised not to insinuate a connection between me and cowardice.
Second, get someone to read to you my earlier response slowly, explaining the big words, wherein I stated I had no strong feelings about gay marriage, a position I am entitled to.
If you need to create a strawman to argue with be sure to leave me uninvolved.
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.