Posted on 06/21/2008 12:44:18 PM PDT by wagglebee
Now that the media have shared with us their joy over the advent of homosexual “marriage” in California, here’s the other shoe that will drop in the next few weeks.
Get used to this term: “The sky is not falling.” It will be used by pro-gay spokespeople that the media showcase to make the point that nobody will be substantially affected.
Shortly after May 17, 2004, when Mitt Romney’s administration began handing out same-sex marriage licenses in Massachusetts despite no legislative action on the law, which was required under the Massachusetts Constitution, the media eagerly showcased gay activists who said, on cue, “See, the sky is not falling.”
I was debating the marriage issue on college campuses with former Human Rights Campaign leader Elizabeth Birch that spring and summer, and I recall her beginning one presentation by noting that the natural elements had remained intact in the Bay State following the beginning of “gay marriage.”
She assured the young audience, which soaked up her utterly illogical argument, that the “sun still came out, the birds still chirped and the flowers still bloomed,” or something to that effect.
Well, the birds chirped and the flowers bloomed in Pearl Harbor on December 8, 1941, as the American fleet lay smoldering.
Yes, sometimes it takes a few years before radical social changes wreak havoc, such as the fallout from the sexual revolution and the rise of the welfare state, which shattered families and led to epidemic levels of promiscuity, divorce, STDs and unwanted pregnancies.
But the “see, nothing has changed?” argument is persuasive for “me-now” minds trained to see only the immediate and to look neither to the past nor the future as important reference points.
But gay activists are under no such illusions as to whether “gay marriage” will have social impact. Here are a few quotes that bear repeating, from my paper “The Case for Marriage,” which I wrote as director of the Culture & Family Institute at Concerned Women for America:
"A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution."
-Michelangelo Signorile, “Bridal Wave,” OUT magazine, December/January 1994, p. 161.
"[E]nlarging the concept to embrace same-sex couples would necessarily transform it into something new....Extending the right to marry to gay people -- that is, abolishing the traditional gender requirements of marriage -- can be one of the means, perhaps the principal one, through which the institution divests itself of the sexist trappings of the past."
-Tom Stoddard, quoted in Roberta Achtenberg, et al, “Approaching 2000: Meeting the Challenges to San Francisco's Families,” The Final Report of the Mayor’s Task Force on Family Policy, City and County of San Francisco, June 13, 1990, p.1.
"It is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us."
- Michelangelo Signorile, “I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do,” OUT magazine, May 1996, p. 30.
"Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. … Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. … As a lesbian, I am fundamentally different from non-lesbian women. …In arguing for the right to legal marriage, lesbians and gay men would be forced to claim that we are just like heterosexual couples, have the same goals and purposes, and vow to structure our lives similarly. … We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality."
-Paula Ettelbrick, “Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?,” in William Rubenstein, ed., Lesbians, Gay Men and the Law (New York: The New Press, 1993), pp. 401-405.
And there’s this from pro-homosexual and pro-pedophile author Judith Levine:
"Because American marriage is inextricable from Christianity, it admits participants as Noah let animals onto the ark. But it doesn't have to be that way. In 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations demanded the ‘repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.’ Would polygamy invite abuse of child brides, as feminists in Muslim countries and prosecutors in Mormon Utah charge? No. Group marriage could comprise any combination of genders."
- Judith Levine, “Stop the Wedding!: Why Gay Marriage Isn’t Radical Enough,” The Village Voice, July 23-29, 2003. Levine declines to mention that the 1972 Gay Rights Platform also called for abolishing age of consent laws. This is a curious omission since Levine herself has written in favor of lowering the age of consent to 12 for sex between children and adults in her book Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex (p. 88).
Remember these statements as you see the media bring the folks on who will assure us all that, “The sky is not falling.”
Robert Knight is director of the Culture and Media Institute, a division of the Media Research Center.
Of course they don't. Militant homosexualism doesn't really care about marriage for themselves, they seek to destroy the institution altogether for the rest of us.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping lists.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
“Militant homosexualism doesn’t really care about marriage for themselves, they seek to destroy the institution altogether for the rest of us.”
Bingo. Although it’s ironic that the radical left relies upon a traditional family birthrate to produce the children (and the money) that the socialists need to institute their workers paradise.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
““Militant homosexualism doesn’t really care about marriage for themselves, they seek to destroy the institution altogether for the rest of us.””
....I think the Mass. situation showed that not that many of them really got married....they didn’t want to be faithful to one person....they live for promiscuity....hense AIDS
Get education about homosexuality into the government schools! And...The Marxists and their Useful Idiots who completely control the government schools will help them!
Guess who else will **HELP** push forward the homosexual indoctrination? Answer: So-called timid, weak, spineless, clueless CHRISTIAN government teachers!
Surely the students **know** that the so-called Christian teachers are wimpy and/or greedy for a paycheck. So?...Would you want to join a church with fence sitting, stupid, and greedy people?
Its to abolish the family and eliminate traditional values in our public life
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Please read post #6.
There are plenty of Christian government teachers who will willing help the homosexuals destroy America. ( And,...take a paycheck and pension for doing it.)
Exactly, they really don't want to be married, they just want to devalue the institution for everyone else.
wagglebee: “Exactly, they really don’t want to be married, they just want to devalue the institution for everyone else.”
I don’t think it’s correct to say what an entire group wants or doesn’t want. No doubt some of the homosexuals truly want marriage as well as the additional benefits that come with it. Others, possibly the majority, only see marriage as another stepping stone toward societal acceptance of all sorts of sexual deviancy.
Really this goes beyond just the homosexuals. Heterosexuals are also devaluing the institution of marriage. Easy divorce and rampant promiscuity/adultery are a social and moral ill. There can be no doubt that a monogamous, heterosexual, Christian relationship is by far best for society. Yet, many people rebel against God and the institutions He established to bless mankind.
Heterosexual, monogamous, Christian marriage is quite possibly the closest thing to heaven on earth. Marry well and stay true to your spouse, and you will likely live a truly blessed life. Even non-religious folks should be willing to admit society is far better when majorities live like Christians, even if they don’t believe in Christianity themselves.
As for the homosexuals, they are pretty much the ultimate rebels against God. Not only do they ignore God’s law, they also defy the very laws of nature. I believe there are some Bible verses to that extent—that homosexuality is a sin to God but it is also despised by mankind.
What once wisely covered up their shame in secret now professes it with pride. This should be no surprise to anyone who reads the Bible. Without God, there is no evil, NO evil, that man won’t do. When Bible prophecy says it will be like Sodom and Gomorrah in the end times, it WILL be like Sodom and Gomorrah. Anyone who is not familiar with the militant homosexuality in those two cities should read the Bible. That is where I believe we are ultimately heading.
However, my hope is we aren’t there yet. I pray Godly men and women still exist in sufficient numbers to resist the radical homosexuals.
I agree. I think there is a militant homosexual agenda that most homosexuals DO NOT subscribe to, just as most Democrats DO NOT hate America. But the left has clearly taken control of the homosexual movement and their agenda includes the total destruction of Judeo-Christian values.
This is why we cannot give any ground, and, in fact, must take it back if this slow progression into degeneracy and anarchy is to be turned back. Sodomy laws will again have to be reinstated as constitutional at state levels. Stockholders in large companies will need to actually get involved and demand from Boards that homosexual-friendly policies be halted and reversed. Vocal opposition to corporate fawning over homo-culture needs to stop with the threat of organized, wide-spread boycotts. We cannot equivocate about whether to grant "civil-unions" in place of homo "marriage" because the former inevitably leads to the latter.
This sounds like a lot of work, more than many of us have had to do before in a culture that was based on Judeo-Christian mores. But now we are in a real battle, and the front line is not on our doorsteps, but in the most intimate rooms of our houses. Christians in this country have been recently persecuted through fines and humiliation just for refusing to provide Christian business services that promotes the homo-agenda, or who speak out in public against this perversity (those in Philadelphia have been jail and threatened with prison time to the glee of homo-activists.)
wagglebee: “But the left has clearly taken control of the homosexual movement and their agenda includes the total destruction of Judeo-Christian values.”
The radical left has not only taken over the homosexual movement, it’s taken over the Democrat Party. That is why I wanted to emphasize it isn’t just about the homosexuals. Western Europe is already post-Christian, and we are well on the way.
We might even be past the point where most conservatives support Christianity. Go back 30 years and most people backed essentially Christian principles (even if they were sinning on the side). Why? One, Americans were generally more moral back then, and two, most people realized Christianity was good for society even if they didn’t believe.
Getting back to the radical homosexual movement, they know Christianity is the greatest obstacle to normalizing their behavior. Plus, I agree they want far more than marriage. I think they (and many others) want to throw off anything that sheds light on their sin or restricts their freedom to do whatever they want.
Well, the homosexuals and fellow travelers on the road of sexual immorality already have the freedom to do pretty much whatever they want in private. That’s simply not good enough. They want to proudly parade their evil in public, and woe to anyone who tells them it’s evil. The first step is gay marriage, then it’s gay adoption, gay education, and speech codes. They won’t be satisfied until Christians are relegated to the closet. Evil will be called good and good will be called evil. Ring a bell?
Why is it that the two states that allow homo marriage had or have a republican gov?
That is a very profound observation. They know something is wrong with them so they keep repeating the "gay pride" mantra. Healthy people do not feel a need to rant about "heterosexual pride" because they know they are not defective. And anyone but the most dissipated straight person would be ashamed to claim something like "adulterers' pride" or "porn addict's pride." But the very essence of "queerness" is to deny any sense of shame to the point of being pathological.
“”They can try, but they cannot change our hearts. They cannot MAKE us not be repulsed the by the images they thrust on to the tv screen, and on our city/town streets.””
It is YOU the homosexuals are after, it is YOUR kids. Don’t you see this access to kids is the male homosexuals’ obsession. They know they can’t do to normal adults what they can do to kids. Judges are already handing out kids to these freaks sentencing the youth of tomorrow to a lifetime of the worst form of sexual abuse.
For what purpose? What's the point here? What exactly is their view of reality? I just don't get. What do they want?
That said, children should be home schooled or in Christian schools, the public education system is interested only in perverting their minds, indoctrinating and recruiting. Public schools, (most) are criminally abusive. If I still had small children, I would make darn sure they never set foot in one.
We also need to make sure our states have Marriage Amendments and that they don't allow homosexuals to adopt. How is the question.
“Although it’s ironic that the radical left relies upon a traditional family birthrate to produce the children (and the money) that the socialists need to institute their workers paradise.”
Was it Lenin that said that “when the time comes to hang the last capitalist, he will sell us the rope”.
Well, I’m afraid we’ve been selling a lot of rope lately!
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.