Posted on 08/14/2010 2:58:47 PM PDT by DesertRenegade
Keep the attitude and don’t listen to anyone then. Every person in broadcasting is paid. You’re more liberal than you think and probably should just admit it.
Are your feelings hurt because I don't worship your idol? I'm an adult. I don't need anyone on TV or the internet to tell me that I'm right. I support conservative values because they work.
So do it all by yourself then. I haven’t told you to believe in anyone. I just suggested that if the conservatives keep bashing each other they have no one to blame but themselves if they are ruled by the Dems.
Ransomed - DBeers said it much better than I was trying to.
Exactly so. Here are a number of homosexual activists’ reasons for wanting same sex marriage:
From LA Times of March 12: ...
“Divided over gay marriage” by Roy Rivenburg Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor who runs the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, recommends legalizing a wide variety of marriage alternatives, including polyamory, or group wedlock. An example could include a lesbian couple living with a sperm-donor father, or a network of men and women who share sexual relations.
One aim, she says, is to break the stranglehold that married heterosexual couples have on health benefits and legal rights. The other goal is to “push the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and in the process transform the very fabric of society.” ... [snip]
An excerpt from: In Their Own Words: The Homosexual Agenda:
“Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994):
“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... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake —and one that would perhaps benefit all of society—is to transform the notion of family entirely.”
“Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.”
Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.
Crain writes: “...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn’t deserve the position.” (Washington Blade, August, 2003).
Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater “understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman.”
He notes: “The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness.” (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)
Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said:
“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. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.” (partially quoted in “Beyond Gay Marriage,”
Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)
Evan Wolfson has stated:
“Isn’t having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. “(quoted in “What Marriage Is For,” by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)
Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says:
“Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I’d be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of ‘till death do us part’ and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play.” (quoted in “Now Free To Marry, Canada’s Gays Say, ‘Do I?’” by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)
1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: “Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit.”
[Also among the demands was the elimination of all age of consent laws.]
Anyone who thinks Beck, Coulter or anyone else is going to save the Republic is entertaining serious idol worship. They are nothing but paid talking heads. They are not party leaders and they don’t set the agenda.
BTTT for the truth.
People here aren’t “bashing” conservative principles, they are criticizing people who are spitting on conservative principles.
Sorry you don’t like that. /sarc
Plus, they all know what happened to Dr. Laura when she took on the “gay” agenda. She was practically destroyed.
Here’s some more:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/451noxve.asp
...Inevitably, the pattern discernible in the statistics is borne out in the statements of the activists. Many of those who most vigorously champion same-sex marriage say that they do so precisely in the hope of dethroning once and for all the traditional “conjugal institution.”
That phrase comes from Judith Stacey, professor of sociology at New York University and a major expert witness testifying in courts and elsewhere for gay marriage. She views the fight for same-sex marriage as the “vanguard site” for rebuilding family forms. The author of journal articles like “Good Riddance to ‘The Family,’” she argues forthrightly that “if we begin to value the meaning and quality of intimate bonds over their customary forms, there are few limits to the kinds of marriage and kinship patterns people might wish to devise.”
Similarly, David L. Chambers, a law professor at the University of Michigan widely published on family issues, favors gay marriage for itself but also because it would likely “make society receptive to the further evolution of the law.” What kind of evolution? He writes, “If the deeply entrenched paradigm we are challenging is the romantically linked man-woman couple, we should respect the similar claims made against the hegemony of the two-person unit and against the romantic foundations of marriage.”
Examples could be multiplied—the recently deceased Ellen Willis, professor of journalism at NYU and head of its Center for Cultural Reporting and Criticism, expressed the hope that gay marriage would “introduce an implicit revolt against the institution into its very heart, further promoting the democratization and secularization of personal and sexual life”—but they can only illustrate the point already established by the large-scale international comparisons: Empirically speaking, gay marriage goes along with the erosion, not the shoring up, of the institution of marriage.
Exactly. These people want to keep their jobs. They aren't going to rock the boat.
There are so many that dismiss the agenda as unbelievable when just a little research would open their eyes............I think.
I used to be “tolerant” and “live and let live” until I started studying up.
But then, I was willing to open my mind to learning. I was willing to give up fondly held opinions or beliefs if it turned out I was wrong.
And it’s not as though there’s a paucity of info about the homosexual agenda out there, what to speak of on FR. Or on this very thread!
Excellent. I’ll add them to my collection.
It’s clear to anyone who can read and wants to know the truth.
I wonder about that.In too many cases it's an ego thing.No one ever wants to admit or accept that they've been had,so the excuses and denials just keep flowing.
A little common sense would prove it too. I remember 30 years ago that we were told abortion was only for the life of the mother and rape. The libs gasped in horror when we said it would be used for birth control. Look where we are.
The homosexual agenda is using the same tactics, incrementalism.
It could also be that they are afraid to look too closely. What’s happening to our country and society is frightening.
True.It is easy to feel overwhelmed.I’ve been there.I’m from Massachusetts.
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.