Posted on 06/24/2004 10:59:52 AM PDT by Alfred Hitchcock
The issue of homosexual marriage will not go away; on the contrary, there is probably no stopping the aggressive advance of homosexual politics in the foreseeable future. That said, however, it is important to understand how we (the nation) arrived where we are now – and the teacher is in to tell us.
(Excerpt) Read more at cruxnews.com ...
Now, back to subect. I'll go back and read the article. The war for values in this country is like the war that formed our independence. Some people want peace above everything else. I wonder if we have enough people of virtue to stand up and fight this battle? So far it doesn't look like it.
Coincidentally, the same day The Family in America arrived, so too did a packet of information sent by a Wanderer reader in California on "philosopher" Arthur Evans, born, 1942.
Evans is the author of such seminal works as, Critique of Patriarchal Reason (1997, White Crane Press), produced with the support of the San Francisco Art Commission; Witchcraft and the Gay Counterculture: A Radical View of Western Civilization and Some of the People It Has Tried to Destroy (1978, Fag Rag Press); The God Of Ecstasy: Sex Roles and the Madness of Dionysius (1987, St. Martin’s Press).
Evans began life as a gay activist as a freshman at Brown University, which he left for Greenwich Village in 1963, and has been deeply involved in the war on Christianity, marriage and family ever since.
His Witchcraft book carries an interesting blurb: "This controversial work...investigates the historical relationship between homosexuality and paganism with a focus on old Europe and the persecution of pagans by Christians during the early formation of the Christian religion. It compares this story with present-day LGBT culture with an intent to show how the current persecution and marginalization of queer people is an extension of a history of religious intolerance."
This book, readers might enjoy learning, was produced with a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts.
Anyone out there believe the NEA would support a book exploring the thesis that the current persecution and marginalization of straight people is an extension of a history of pagan intolerance?
On the web: www.thewandererpress.com
IF marriage is redefined against the current dictionary definitions it is just one more word that bitest he dust and prevents us from better reasoning.
We need unique words for unique categories. When we permit words to be redefined so that they become more "inclusive" of things that are not the same we delute the ability of the language to help us thinking clearly.
For example, the word 'gay' use to mean a particular form of being happy. It denoted a specific type of happiness. It helped us think more precisely about happiness. But now it means primarily 'to have sexual desires for someone of the same sex' - and so the word homosexuality is collapsed into the word 'gay' - and gay loses its primary meaning in the language and so when we talk about happiness we have to reinvent another word for being gay.
Instead of calling it marriage when two men make some kind of vow to each other that involves having sex together why not just call it what it always has been called? Why destroy the word marriage? We will have to put an adjective in front of the word marriage - i.e. heterosexual marriage vs. homosexual marriage or as some try to do it same-sex marriage vs. different sex marriage? How awkward and destructive of our languages ability to help us?
I think when two men want to make a vow to each other in which they agree to have sex with each other why not make up a new word or use the old word we have been using? Perhaps a new word would be homovox or homowed.
You think too logically. In order to think like a liberal, you have to get all emotional. The meaning of a word depends on how it makes you feel today. Like everything else, it is relative. Just close your eyes and pick, in trance like fashion, what you feel is SHOULD mean. Then realize that all others have the right to pick what they think it should mean (except those who think it actually has an absolute meaning). Then and only then will you know the true meaning of the word.
Nope, too busy watching "Law and Order" and all the rest of the drivel...!
Government has no business being in the marriage business at all. There should be no tax advantage for pair-bonding nor any other form of recognition by the state.
If it has merit for social or religous reasons, the wisdom of the people will lead them to it.
The church is free to marry or not marry whomever they wish.
Food for thought from the article:
"if Americans scrutinize carefully the way the national culutre has in recent decades re-defined wedlock for heterosexuals, they may well conclude that it is not homosexuals that have changed so much, but rather marriage itself. [...]
"Once defined by religious doctrine, moral tradition, and home-centered commitments to child-rearing and gender complementarity in productive labor, marriage has become a deracinated and highly individualistic and egalitarian institution no longer implying commitment to home, to Church, to child-bearing, to traditional gender duties, or even (permanently) to spouse. Gone is the productive husband-wife bond defined by mutual sacrifice and cooperative labor, replaced by dual-careerist vistas of self-fulfillment and consumer satisfaction. [...] Thus, while the attempt to deny homosexuals the right to marry is understandable and even morally and legally justified, such an attempt is probably foredoomed if it does not lead to a broader effort to restore moral and religious integrity to marriage as a heterosexual institution....."
It's not about pairs...there's been a marriage penalty for many years. It's about children, which is what the tax advantage is about. Interestingly enough, there's actually a greater tax advantage for being a single parent, because "head of household" is available.
You are exactly right.
of your list, several are already quite dead in the pop-kult
loyalty, fidelity, duty, and honor are DEAD - utter these words aloud to one who is of the PC horde and you shall be laughed out of the room.
courage, conviction, freedom... these words have naught but a wan corrupted shadow of their former meanings.
I think this fits in
Flag Wars....Sodomites harass poor & middle class Blacks to get their homes. (pos. barf alert)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1158429/posts
Teaching at a University I try to end each course by giving my students $2 bills turning them over and reading outloud the declaration of independence.
The words "self-evident truths" and that "we hold these" and "endowed by their creator" are strong tough words that some students object to hearing!! though their very liberty to learn in a free society is protected by consensus with regard to this declaration of independence from despots who would force their definitions of fundamentals upon the majority.
However - when the majority becomes despotic declaring your independence from it is impossible - moving to somewhere else is the answer - perhaps it is time for one of our states to try to delcare its independence from the majority that becomes despotic - one of the small population states that is already heavily pro-constitution.
If the majority of any nation becomes godless then the rights endowed by a Creator are lost. This is what is about to happen in America. It has happened in Canada and other nations in Europe.
A pastor was prosecuted in Canada for placing an ad in a newspaper there that simply quoted a verse from the Bible.
Equivocation in use of words
Makes all things possible
Except logic, reason and real thought.
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.