Skip to comments.On Fights in Which I No Longer Own a Dog
Posted on 12/31/2005 2:18:58 PM PST by vanderleun
click here to read article
I was just wanting a day on FR where I could avoid serious discussion. Not wanting to make a big deal out of such a sweet, simple lyric.
Most days I'm quite happy to look for the hidden or broader applications.
Yes, I still love the song and the lyrics with their simple, direct meaning. I really enjoyed The Lovin' Spoonful's music.
You might reflect that deep down you're being quite shallow. The attitude that FreeR is the default meeting ground of "thinking people" reveals that you need to think more deeply about what thinking actually is. Is it kneejerk agreement with some unwritten but 'widely understood' set of attitudes about what is kosher to think and say here? I don't think so but your milage obviously varies.
I would adjur you not to attribute every little thing that doesn't map to your inner self as something out of the DU. You'll miss the opportunity to expand and will find you shrink instead.
I don't think you want to parallel the goose stepping of DU with lock stepping at FR. Do you?
Good piece. Thanks.
I don't know why people are getting katty here. I enjoyed your peace and laughed out loud a few times. I didn'rt agree with everything but I enjoyed it. God bless.
The only part I disagree with is the simplistic take on "gay marriage", since "gay marriage" simply cannot exist any more than "bright darkness" can exist. But other than getting sucked into feeling it necessary to even comment about a such a red-herring impossibility, I thoroughly enjoyed this rant.
I agree with you.
Cripes, it's New Year's Eve/Day and this writer took the time to compose a lengthy, thoughtful, interesting and mostly well-written column. I sure enjoyed it, even though I was certainly not in full agreement with everything. I don't get why some people feel it necessary to be critical in a mean way. Oh well.
Look forward to reading this.
By all means keep trying.
But spend some time with a good dictionary and spellcheck, okay?
More properly speaking, homosexual monogamy...
Two homosexuals cannot be "monogamous" because the word denotes a biological procreation they are not capable of together; human reproductive biology is an obvious secular standard.
Marriage is a religious "rite," not a civil "right;" a secular standard of human reproductive biology united with the Judaic Adam and Eve model of monogamy in creationist belief.
All adults have privilege to marry one consenting adult of opposite gender; therefore, Fourteenth Amendment "equal protection" argument about "privileges and immunities" for homosexual marriage is invalid. Driving, marriage, legal and medical practices are not enumerated rights; they are privileged practices that require statutory license. Nothing that requires a license is a right.
It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made "separation of church and state" a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices. Congress, state legislatures and public referenda have statutorily determined polygamous, pederast, homosexual, and incestuous marriages are unlawful. No Constitutional Amendment restricting marriage is required to regulate "practice" according to the Reynolds decision.
"Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices..."
Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 8 Otto 145, 24 L. Ed. 244 (1878).]
See also: Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 792, 34 L. Ed. 478 (1890). Revised as 140 U.S. 665, 11 S.Ct. 884, 35 L. Ed. 592 (1891).
Homosexual monogamy advocates are a cult of perversion seeking ceremonious sanctification for voluntary deviancy with anatomical function and desperately pursuing esoteric absolution to justify their guilt-ridden egos. This has no secular standard; it is an idolatrous fetish. Why not properly apply the adjudicated Reynolds 'separation of church and state' here?
No person can logically say that carnal practices engaged by homosexuals are consistent with human anatomical function. It is obvious, and an impervious secular argument to say that biology is a standard by which we can measure. The hormonal drive to mate is biologically heterosexual. Either homosexuality is a choice, a birth defect, or it is a mental illness. Take your pick.
But other than getting sucked into feeling it necessary to even comment about a such a red-herring impossibility,...
I'm not sure if that red-herring wasn't really the whole point of it with everything else gratuitously and sloppily constructed around it...
macamadamia's tagline says it well: The great dangerous non-sequitur du jour
Pay special attention to the mention of the Nuclear Option.
The left is frothing at the prospect of losing their stranglehold on the Supreme Court and fear their holy grail of homosexual monogamy will go down in flames...
* little jeremiah - - psychological dynamics ping...* they will do anything to slip the homosexual agenda into any story...
The Nuclear Option
If you want to be added to this list, please notify me...
Originally, the Nuclear Option Ping List started out as a practical joke. With all the vitriolic response I received from certain un-named individuals, I figured it would be a great idea to do it for real...
I have observed here on Free Republic, a never ending flaming of religious folks and conservatives by people who promote things such as drug abuse, homosexuality, the ritual murder of abortion and other garbage.
Not being an orthodox or ecumenical atheist, it has really stretched my patience. I do not think policemen are jack-booted thugs, nor do I look at people who want to protect their families from filthy scum as brownshirts.
The purpose of this is to alert people to the cultural Marxism run amok... Drugs, sex perverts, pornography (in film and in music), marijuana, liquor, bashing the religious people, destroying social institutions (like marriage and the Boy Scouts), etc., etc.,... ad nausea...
The druggies like the sex perverts can only perpetuate an ever increasing market for their filth by molesting the minds and bodies of the young ones... this is the only way they get new Demo-rat voters... CHEMICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE!
It is no coincidence Islamic pagans hate Israel, Jews, Christians and Western Civilization. The entire basis of Western Civilization is Mosaic Law, something both the Neo-Pagan Left and the pagan Islamic thugs cannot abide and wish to destroy.
The very idea that human beings have individual rights not subject to the whims of a monarch, but subject to the laws of Yahweh, is directly from Moses.
Historically, this is proven over and over again with the succsessive conflicts between the forces of paganism and the Judaic culture. It is being played out here and all over the world today...
Observing this as an atheist, I prefer the paradigm of a Judaic culture to the chaotic death cult of New Age neo-pagan absurdity.
Well, he could at least use my name.
And Happy New Year.
Good thinking points in the mix.
The idea that "gay marriage" is inevitable, so we should just accept it, is like the advice that used to be given to women if a rapist attacked - just lie back and take it, since it's inevitable.
Fight evil, without stopping; it's the right thing to do. I wish I could remember Churchill's statement about fighting evil if it we lose.
I agree with some stuff; but why that "gay" promotion?
It was the sole purpose of the whole thing.
The psychological dynamic here is to get you to agree with as much as possible (sort of like a sales pressure tactic), then hit you with something else...
Actually your take on marriage is demonstrably wrong in historical terms: Roman civil marriage was also monogamous and owed nothing to Jewish Scripture. It was Roman civil marriage, not Jewish marriage, which became the basis for Christian marriage. Marriages between Christians were Roman civil marriages undertaken with the blessing of the bishop until at least the time of Justinian (whose novellas permit either priests or notaries to conclude marriages), and were not a strictly religious affair until the transfer of all marriages between free citizens to the Church by Leo VI in the 9th century, and all marriages by Alexis I in the late 11th century.
How the transition from civil to Church marriage was handled in the lands which ceased to be under Imperial control thanks to barbarian invasions, I don not know: perhaps one of our knowledgable Latins can fill in.
Marriage is a natural institution, Church (or other religious) marriage is the sanctification of that institution, and civil marriage its acknowledgment by the state. The baleful effects of 'gay marriage' in our already debauched culture lie primarily in the redefinition of the natural institution as the content of its state recognition so that the natural institution is abolished and replaced with a statist construct.
Christianity came from Judaism, which was long before the Romans were even a shot in the dark. Yeshua was a Jew and there is a reference to marriage in the Gospel (forgive me, I'm not a Christian and cannot recall the text).
Now, you may make the argument that the basis for Roman Catholic marriage (which some Christians would argue is of a pagan nature) is from the Roman pagan culture.
Adultery was certainly condoned and sanctioned for the male in Rome and in Greece, something the Judaic culture had forbid, despite their history of polygyny.
But, even so, the nature of marriage is biological, establishing who the parents were for inheritance. It is a creationist model nevertheless, as even the pagan Romans, pagan Greeks and other ancient pagan cultures were. It just so happens that marriage in this country is based on the Judaic model, otherwise we would not have adultery as legal grounds for a woman seeking a divorce.
Words for an American to live by.
And now a word about my party, poised dramatically to once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
HE AMAZINGLY ASSININE REPUBLICANS .... prove that just because the Democrats long ago lost their cojones, the Republican party didn't find them or grow a pair of their own.
Happy New Year!
Yes, Christianity came from Judaism, but Christian marriage came from Roman marriage. There was no Christian marriage rite copied or adapted from the Jewish rite. Indeed within the Empire the Church had no specific rite for marriage until the 9th century (again I don't know what the Latins outside the Empire did about this). Until then Christian marriages were as I described them: Roman civil marriages undertaken with the blessing of the bishop.
Christ's reference to marriage is not bounded or conditioned on the Jewish notion either--Jews were permitted both multiple wives and concubines, while Roman marriages were monogamous, albeit with the defect of concubinage as in institution--rather Christ refers to the natural institution in its ideal form.
Nor is there any point in separating 'Roman Catholic' from Christian here: I am discussing the state of Christian marriage before even the schism of the Nestorians from the Church, and even the institution of the 'rite of crowning' and the transfer of the registration of marriages to the Church took place before the schism of the Roman patriarchate from the Church.
Christian marriage came from Judaism - - Adam and Eve. The Bible says so...
Marriage was long established in Judaism before Rome ever existed. Rome is not the center of Christianity - - Yeshua was born into the House of David.
Christ refers to the natural institution in its ideal form.
No, he was referring to Genesis 1:18, Yahweh and Yeshua are one in the same...
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.