Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Battling for America’s Soul How Homosexual “Marriage” Threatens Our Nation and Faith
TFP ^ | 4 June 2008 | TFP Staff

Posted on 08/21/2010 7:50:15 AM PDT by IbJensen

Within the perspective of the nation’s Cultural War, Americans felt the full force of two actions favoring the homosexual movement in May 2008. Same-sex “marriage” is now being imposed upon the nation by government fiat.

On May 15, 2008, California’s Supreme Court declared the unconstitutionality of Proposition 22—ignoring the voices of 61% of California voters who approved the measure in 2000—and all other California statutes restricting marriage to the union of one man and one woman and imposed homosexual “marriage” on the Golden State.

Concomitantly, New York Governor David Patterson unilaterally ordered all government agencies to revamp their rules, procedures, and regulations so as to show legal recognition to same-sex “marriages” contracted outside the state.

* * *

A. The Acceptance of Same-Sex “Marriage” Is Incompatible with Christianity

1) Diverging Views on Reality and the Natural Order… Secularism’s profound divergence from a Christian worldview anchored in reality lies at the root of this clash.

When man’s understanding of a thing corresponds to reality, it is true.1 When it does not, we have error which can be the result of an intellectual mistake, a whim, or an ideological bond that deforms our perception. In such cases, we detach ourselves from reality and attach ourselves to an illusory, utopian understanding of the thing.

2) …Lead to Different Concepts of Marriage, Family, and Society Few issues illustrate the divergence between the secularist and the Christian worldviews as does today’s cultural battle over marriage. Secularists accept same-sex “marriage,” while denying the specific reality of marriage, rooted in nature. They deny that the self-evident biological, physiological and psychological differences between men and women find their complementarity in marriage, just as they deny that the specific primary purpose of marriage is the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

This strictly natural concept of marriage is sustained by the Old and New Testaments.

We read in the Book of Genesis: “God created man in His image; in the Divine image he created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them, saying: ‘Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.’” (1:28-29) The same was taught by Our Savior Jesus Christ: “From the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife.” (Mark 10:6-7)

Rejection of the Christian worldview is secularism’s negative, destructive aspect. Its “positive” aspect is the utopia of a society without moral restraints in which marriage and the family have been redefined.

3) Utopian Societies and Loss of Freedom History is a great teacher. In the twentieth century, Nazism and communism showed the world that, when society loses its moorings in the natural order and gives itself over to utopias, the inevitable result is dictatorship. This dictatorship can take many forms and be exercised from the halls of government, party headquarters, judicial chambers, or media outlets.2

4) A Threat to Religion and Freedom We should not delude ourselves. Over the past decades, America has witnessed a rising tide of laws, decrees, regulations, and judicial decisions that favor homosexuality on one hand, and hinder and punish those who oppose them for reasons of faith and conscience on the other.

Taking a Principled not a Personal Stand

In writing this statement, we have no intention to defame or disparage anyone. We are not moved by personal hatred against any individual. In intellectually opposing individuals or organizations promoting the homosexual agenda, our only intent is the defense of traditional marriage, the family, and the precious remnants of Christian civilization.

As practicing Catholics, we are filled with compassion and pray for those who struggle against unrelenting and violent temptation to homosexual sin. We pray for those who fall into homosexual sin out of human weakness, that God may assist them with His grace.

We are conscious of the enormous difference between these individuals who struggle with their weakness and strive to overcome it and others who transform their sin into a reason for pride and try to impose their lifestyle on society as a whole, in flagrant opposition to traditional Christian morality and natural law. However, we pray for these too.

We pray also for the judges, legislators and government officials who in one way or another take steps that favor homosexuality and same-sex “marriage.” We do not judge their intentions, interior dispositions, or personal motivations.

We reject and condemn any violence. We simply exercise our liberty as children of God (Rom. 8:21) and our constitutional rights to free speech and the candid, unapologetic and unashamed public display of our Catholic faith. We oppose arguments with arguments. To the arguments in favor of homosexuality and same-sex “marriage” we respond with arguments based on right reason, natural law and Divine Revelation.

In a polemical statement like this, it is possible that one or another formulation may be perceived as excessive or ironic. Such is not our intention.

Shortly after the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex “marriage,” Prof. David R. Carlin observed:

The Christian moral system is no minor part of Christianity, any more than the heart or lungs are minor parts of the human body. Overthrow the Christian moral system and you will have overthrown Christianity itself. Therefore, those who are pushing for the institution of same-sex marriage are ipso facto pushing for the elimination of the Christian religion.3

By legalizing same-sex “marriage,” the State becomes its official and active promoter. It calls on public officials to officiate at the new civil ceremony, orders public schools to teach its acceptability to children, and punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval.

In the private sphere, objecting parents will soon see their children exposed more than ever to this new “morality,” businesses offering wedding services will be forced to provide them for same-sex unions, and rental property owners will have to agree to accept same-sex couples as tenants.

In any situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on Divine law and the natural order.

Left unchecked, this anti-Christian trend will become an unprecedented assault on the First Amendment and our American way of life that we do not hesitate to call persecution.

5) Legalization of Same-Sex “Marriage” Creates a Terrible Problem of Conscience As the homosexual revolution’s anti-Christian intolerance makes itself felt through increasingly persecutory measures, a terrible problem of conscience arises in any who resist: Should we follow our consciences? Should we give in?

For Catholics like ourselves, the condoning of same-sex “marriage” would be tantamount to a renunciation of Faith.

6) Moral Acceptance of Same-Sex “Marriage” Is Tantamount to the Denial of Divine Revelation As Prof. Carlin pointed out, the Christian moral system is an essential part of Christianity. Catholic dogma and morality are founded on Divine Revelation and therefore must be accepted by virtue of the supreme authority of God, Who guarantees their truthfulness and goodness.4 The same God Who revealed truths on what we must believe also revealed truths on how we are to live.5

Therefore, when a Catholic rejects a truth in moral matters that is clearly contained in Revelation, he rejects the Divine authority that guarantees that truth and the whole supernatural basis of the Faith.6

Now, Divine Revelation,7 the “constant teaching of the Magisterium and the moral sense of the Christian people”8 clearly condemn homosexual acts. Thus, to deny the intrinsic evilness of the homosexual act, and, even more, to recognize it as worthy of practice or acceptance in the social order is to contradict expressly Divine Revelation (and the precepts of natural law).

* * *

B. The Catholic Church’s Perennial and Immutable Moral Doctrine Condemns Homosexual Practice

For a Catholic, the stakes do not get higher since nothing is more precious than the Faith. Thus, it is useful to review the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church so there can be no doubt about the intrinsic immorality of homosexual acts. This teaching of the Church is unchangeable as it is based on immutable Divine Revelation and on unalterable human nature.

In view of the homosexual movement’s unrelenting propaganda and judicial rulings and legislative measures favoring the practice of homosexuality, the Magisterium of the Church has repeatedly been obliged to remind the faithful of the perennial moral doctrine that homosexual acts are “intrinsically evil.”

The most important of these reminders are found in:

1) Persona Humana – Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics On December 29, 1975, amid the widespread abandonment of Christian morality caused by the sexual revolution, the Holy See’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published Persona Humana – Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics.

Regarding homosexuality, the document rejects the conclusion drawn by some that a stable homosexual relationship analogous to marriage can be justified:

No pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For, according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. (Sec. 8)

2) Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons On October 1, 1986, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published a Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons.9 Addressed to all the Catholic bishops of the world, the Letter states that “a person engaging in homosexual behavior therefore acts immorally.” (No. 7)

The Letter also states that those afflicted with same-sex attraction “ are called to enact the will of God in their life by joining whatever sufferings and difficulties they experience in virtue of their condition to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross.” (No. 12)

3) Pope John Paul II’s Encyclical Veritatis Splendor In 1993, Pope John Paul II published his encyclical Veritatis Splendor which affirms:

In teaching the existence of intrinsically evil acts, the Church accepts the teaching of Sacred Scripture. The Apostle Paul emphatically states: “Do not be deceived: neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the Kingdom of God.” (1 Cor. 6:9-10) (No. 81)

4) The Catechism of the Catholic Church In 1994, the Holy See published the Catechism of the Catholic Church,10 which restated the doctrine expressed in previous documents. The Catechism clearly teaches that homosexual acts are unnatural, and among the “sins gravely contrary to chastity.” (No. 2396)

5) Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons In 2003, the Holy See launched yet another document recalling Catholic doctrine on sexual morals and condemning the proposed legalization of same-sex “marriage” and“civil unions.”

Published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on July 31, 2003, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons was signed by the Congregation’s prefect, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.11

Based on the principle that marriage supposes “the complementarity of the sexes,” Considerations explains that “marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose.”

Therefore, Considerations concludes:

There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.” (CCC, no. 2357) Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts “as a serious depravity”…(cf. Rom. 1:24-27; 1 Cor. 6:10; 1 Tim. 1:10).…This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition. (No. 4)

We call the reader’s particular attention to this quote. The Holy See teaches there is no analogy between homosexual unions and God's plan for marriage. Our courts legalize same-sex “marriage” based on this non-existent analogy.

* * *

C. Same-Sex “Marriage” Harms the Common Good

Homosexual activists and their secularist allies frequently repeat the sophism that there is no harm in the legalization of same-sex “marriage” as it does not imply any change to or proscription of traditional marriage. Supposedly, both can coexist peacefully side by side.

Alerting the faithful to this sophism, Considerations points out several of the nefarious social consequences arising from the legalization of homosexual unions.

1) Legalization of Homosexual Unions Weakens Private and Public Morality The law of the land acts as a teacher of what is morally acceptable. Thus, Considerations states:

In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behavior as a private phenomenon and the same behavior as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure. This second phenomenon is not only more serious, but also assumes a more wide-reaching and profound influence, and would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good. Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society, for good or for ill. They “play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior.” Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation's perception and evaluation of forms of behavior. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage. (No. 6)

2) Legalization of Homosexual Unions Undermines Marriage and the Family According to Considerations, “laws in favor of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason,” and “the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.” (No. 6)

Considerations says further:

The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties. (No. 8)

3) Reason does not Support the Legalization of Homosexual Unions Because homosexual unions cannot fulfill the primary purpose of marriage, they have no rational justification.

Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. (No. 7)

Recourse to artificial means of conception does not cure this fundamental flaw in same-sex unions. Rather, it makes them all the more unnatural, since, Considerations reminds us, such means are “a grave lack of respect for human dignity.” (No. 7)

4) Legalization of Homosexual Unions Denigrates Conjugal Love Lastly, Considerations states, same-sex unions lack a real “conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality.” (No. 7)

* * *

D. TFP Calls for Lawful, Conscientious Resistance to Same-Sex “Marriage” and the Homosexual Movement

1) Catholics Have an Obligation to Oppose Same-Sex “Marriage” Considerations states that Catholics must do their utmost to oppose the legalization of homosexual unions. We are bound a fortiori to resist homosexual “marriage,” taking into account the following points in Considerations:

• “The approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.”

• “One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws.”

• “Material cooperation on the level of their application” must be avoided.

• One may even resort to the “right to conscientious objection.”

• Where homosexual unions have been legalized, “clear and emphatic opposition is a duty.” (No. 5)

2) Laws that Contradict Right Reason Do Not Bind in Conscience Considerations explains the moral basis for this resistance, saying, “civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience” (Evangelium Vitae, no. 72). Every law must be “consistent with the natural moral law recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.”12

The natural moral law binds all people, in all times. No State is above its precepts. State authorities who enact or enforce same-sex “marriage” laws fail in their duty to uphold the common good. To them can be addressed the words of Saint John the Baptist to King Herod: “It is not lawful for thee.” (Matt. 14:4; Mark 6:18)

3) Catholic Politicians Have a Specific Obligation Considerations’ Section IV, titled “Positions of Catholic politicians with regard to legislation in favor of homosexual unions,” emphasizes the obligation of elected Catholic officials to oppose such legislation:

If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legalization of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians…. The Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral. (No. 10)

Some Catholics elected or appointed to public office have invoked the secular principle of separation of Church and State as an excuse to ignore Catholic morality in their public life. What they are really doing is separating, in their persons, “the Catholic” from “the public official.” This separation violates the unity of being and the premises of moral and logic. Every man is judged by God according to his thoughts, words and deeds, and therefore, on the oneness of his personality.

4) Being Faithful to our Baptismal Vow A Catholic who accepts the practice of homosexuality and same-sex “marriage” as good renounces natural moral law principles confirmed by Divine Revelation and thus breaks the vow of fidelity made to Our Lord Jesus Christ at baptism.

5) Join the Spiritual Crusade We must join the Crusade like many who “preceded us with the sign of faith.” Unlike the Crusades of old, ours is not physical, but spiritual.13 Being part of this spiritual crusade means being an untiring apostle for marriage and the family; to never lose an opportunity to tell others — family, friends, neighbors, and co-workers — that homosexual acts and same-sex “marriage” are wrong, unnatural and “intrinsically evil.”

6) Join the Political Fray Catholics not engaged in political life need to become involved. When freedoms and Christianity itself are at stake, absenteeism is not an option.

For some, this political involvement starts with registering to vote. However, there are numerous other initiatives, not directly linked to voting, that deserve attention, time, and talent.

These activities and political initiatives are constantly varying. Those committed to defend marriage must stay informed. This battlefield is subject to constant change.

7) Oppose All Efforts to Legalize Same-Sex “Marriage” We must oppose all efforts to legalize same-sex “marriage,” in every branch of government: the legislative, judicial and executive. We must promote petitions, write letters to the newspapers, and contact those elected or appointed to public office.

8) Reverse Legalized Same-Sex “Marriage” In those jurisdictions where same-sex “marriage” has been legalized by the courts or the legislature, or where its recognition has been mandated at the executive level, one must help every lawful effort to reverse this legalization and recognition.

9) Remain Steadfast in Persecution Where same-sex “marriage” has been legalized, one must make use of the right to conscientious objection and refuse all formal or material cooperation in its application.

If one suffers persecution as a result, one should offer this to God, and fight back by bringing this injustice to the public eye. This can be done by contacting those in the media, the legal profession, or the pro-family movement who can assist in the defense of one’s rights. First Amendment rights may be weakened in the U.S., but are not yet abolished.

10) If We Fight Faithfully to the End, God Will Give us Victory! Saint Joan of Arc encouraged her troops to fight bravely regardless of the odds, saying, “If we fight, God will give the victory!”

In this struggle, we too must fight as if everything depended on us, but rely entirely on God to give us victory. And He will do so, for, in the words of Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira: “When men resolve to cooperate with the grace of God, the marvels of History are worked.”14

* * *

E. We Are Opposing the Homosexual “Moral Revolution”

In this lawful, faithful and necessary resistance, we must keep in mind the true goals of secularism and the homosexual movement.

Whereas the truth and the good become more attractive the more completely they appear in their nature, methods and ends, error and evil, on the contrary, are able to seduce only to the degree they hide their ultimate goal.

By imposing same-sex “marriage” on society, the homosexual movement and its secularist allies show their true face, and this will diminish their capacity to seduce. Their railroading of same-sex “marriage” on the American people makes increasingly clear what homosexual activist Paul Varnell wrote in the Chicago Free Press:

The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality.15

Conclusion: We Are Battling for the Soul of America It is clear, therefore, that the battle for marriage in America is the clash of two worldviews. On the one hand, those Americans who still defend a moral law. On the other, the homosexual revolution and its secularist allies.

Religious Persecution in the Making

Below are some signs of laws and other measures that target Americans who oppose homosexual acts and same-sex “marriage.”

· In 2007, California Gov. Schwarznegger signed a measure into law that places public school teachers before the alternative of either teaching the homosexual ideology or suffering sanctions.16

· Also in 2007, Crystal Dixon, former Associate Vice President of Human Resources at the University of Toledo, was fired after writing a letter to the editor expressing her belief as a black woman that it was inaccurate to compare the homosexual movement to the civil rights movement.17

· In 2008, Jon and Elaine Huguenin were fined $6,000 by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission for refusing to photograph a homosexual “commitment ceremony.”18

· In Massachusetts, the justices of the peace who refused, based on problems of conscience, to solemnize same-sex “marriages” were summarily dismissed.19

· Boston Catholic Charities was obliged to abandon its adoption service since it was not willing to place children with homosexual couples.20

The stakes are also clear. This is a battle for the soul of America. The so-called Cultural War is gradually becoming a Religious War. For one cannot modify the lex agendi (rules of morals) without thereby modifying the lex credendi (rules of belief) given the profound relationship between the two. He who accepts as good and even exalts homosexual practice cannot adore the true and living God who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of that sin. (Gen. 18-19)

In view of the above, it is urgent to resist the imposition on our country of “morals” opposed to those of Christ.

Our resistance must be accompanied by sincere, ardent, and persevering prayer, since, as the Savior admonished us, “without Me you can do nothing.” (John 15:5)

Lastly, since the legalization of homosexual “marriage” is a public sin that can draw God’s punishment upon our country, we must sacrifice and do penance, for God does not despise “a contrite and humbled heart.” (Ps. 50:19)

The hour is late. Our Lady warned at Fatima that sin weighs heavy in the scales of God’s justice. God will not be mocked. (Gal. 6:7) By taking energetic and faithful action in this struggle, we can heed the Blessed Mother’s maternal warning, recognize and correct our failings, and rightly be one nation under God. The choice is ours.

May She help us all to do our duty, in full and faithful compliance with the perennial and immutable teaching of Holy Mother Church on the intrinsic evilness of homosexual acts.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: catholic; family; homosexualagenda; marriage; moralabsolutes; perversion; samesexmarriage; society
Abortion and the marriage of two sodomites.

Both inherently evil and both extremely destructive to this nation.

America is confronted with an anti-president who, along with most of his complicit Congress, despises America and is more than willing to keep shoveling the dirt on our graves!

1 posted on 08/21/2010 7:50:18 AM PDT by IbJensen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Forty five years ago the hippie-free love movements declared marriage dead! Outdated! O fogy ideas a produce of an old generaion! If you loved someone you didn’t need a piece of paper to make it so as long as you were sincere. When love faded you found someone else.

In the last few years, the modern version of the hippie-free love movement now says marriage is the most important thing you can have, but only IF YOU ARE GAY!


2 posted on 08/21/2010 8:48:37 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (AKA Rodrigo de Bivar)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

I disagree that Christians should spend much effort on this issue.

Ultimately, what we’re talking about here is state licensing of secular marriage. Not the religious sacrament. I think there is a very obvious road for Christians to take here: quit getting marriage licenses.


3 posted on 08/21/2010 8:50:47 AM PDT by RKBA Democrat (Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics, and victors study demographics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
Abortion and the marriage of two sodomites. Both inherently evil and both extremely destructive to this nation.
Lately I've been (literally) seeing good v evil in our home town area. Yesterday, on the way to an appointment, we passed the local palm reading hut (which has been there for many years), and we saw four people walking in. The women's faces looked similar to the photo I've included, and they both were wearing long black witch dresses. (Pretty creepy to see on a sunny afternoon in the suburbs.) There were two children in tow as well; they were dressed typically, but it was sad to see them included on this type of excursion.

Sample prayer group photo.Then early this morning as my husband and I (and our dogs) were walking home from Mass, we saw off to our right a group of about 25 people (young to middle-aged) gathered in a parking lot (that otherwise was filled with cars), and they were in a circle, heads bowed down, and the lead man had his hand held high in the air. This did not appear to be a Catholic group; no rosaries, prayer cards, or a priest; but another Christian group doing God's work through prayer. We no doubt have quite a fight on our hands. Maybe it's now time to be more obvious about the side we have chosen. What do you think?
4 posted on 08/21/2010 9:36:02 AM PDT by mlizzy (Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat

We’re going to have to spend much time fighting for many hills and this is just one of them.

You can sit this one out though!


5 posted on 08/21/2010 10:19:34 AM PDT by IbJensen ((Ps 109.8): "Let his days be few; and let another take his position.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat

We’re going to have to spend much time fighting for many hills and this is just one of them.

You can sit this one out though!


6 posted on 08/21/2010 10:20:23 AM PDT by IbJensen ((Ps 109.8): "Let his days be few; and let another take his position.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: All

Hiccup


7 posted on 08/21/2010 10:20:52 AM PDT by IbJensen ((Ps 109.8): "Let his days be few; and let another take his position.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Good article.


8 posted on 08/21/2010 10:24:11 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen; little jeremiah; Antoninus; William Terrell; scripter; wagglebee; wardaddy; AuntB
[Article] In writing this statement, we have no intention to defame or disparage anyone. We are not moved by personal hatred against any individual.

That anyone equipped with moral courage and a clear moral vision would make such a statement, hedging his statement with disclaimers, shows by itself the dark victory of the Madsen-Kirk "queer agenda" of "overhauling straight America".

Beyond the moral argument, the American Experiment as an idea must now deal with the "I told you so" reproach of Old Conservatives (i.e. eighteenth-century conservatives) who always taught, in Catholic tradition, that the Liberty agenda and the American concept of free men and free will is fundamentally flawed and doomed. And that, of course, humanity needs the strong guiding hand of the Catholic Church at all times and in all things. Which thus satisfies the working definition of a totalitarian ideology.

Thus would say the Old Conservatives and Catholics.

America as an idea definitely has a problem, if it can't keep the animals pent up.

9 posted on 08/21/2010 10:50:03 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat
....what we’re talking about here is state licensing of secular marriage. Not the religious sacrament.

Don't give the bad guys the issue. Don't give them anything.

10 posted on 08/21/2010 10:52:10 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat
The natural moral law binds all people, in all times. No State is above its precepts.

People and nations get into trouble when they violate the Natural Law.

11 posted on 08/21/2010 10:53:03 AM PDT by Jacquerie (Democrats soil institutions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

Gotta ping this out in a bit.


12 posted on 08/21/2010 3:20:15 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

“Don’t give the bad guys the issue. Don’t give them anything.”

Of course. But I wouldn’t spend much in resources on it, either. We’ve got bigger fish to fry right now.

I reckon the early Christians didn’t fret much over the Roman empire’s definition of marriage. We shouldn’t either.


13 posted on 08/21/2010 7:45:21 PM PDT by RKBA Democrat (Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics, and victors study demographics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

“People and nations get into trouble when they violate the Natural Law.”

Yes, and at a certain point Lot decided to obey God and leave sodom and gomorrah to their fate.


14 posted on 08/21/2010 7:48:08 PM PDT by RKBA Democrat (Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics, and victors study demographics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat

This is why homosexual activists want marriage. It’s not about relationships. It’s about destroying society and dominance. Please read their own reasons, in their own words.

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.]


15 posted on 08/21/2010 8:51:40 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
Homosexual Agenda and Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.

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 ]

I have not read this article yet - but will tomorrow. I have seen the comment "there are bigger fish to fry" a lot lately. I'd like to know what bigger fish there are than "changing the very fabric of society" and destroying the basic foundation of human civilization - the natural family. There aren't many fish bigger than that.

Either Natural Law and its Author are the ultimate authority, or the mind of man is the ultimate authority. And of course since humans cannot always agree, who ever has the most power gets to say what is what. Unless society is founded upon Natural Law and its Author, chaos and tyranny are the only alternative.

16 posted on 08/21/2010 8:56:59 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat
Everyone should see the danger, not just Christians.

From my list of quotes below:

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."

17 posted on 08/21/2010 9:01:01 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

“It’s not about relationships. It’s about destroying society and dominance.”

Of course it is. The question is what to do about it. I take a fairly pessimistic view, at least from the perspective of the wider secular society.

Is our responsibility as Christians to try to save secular society from it’s folly, or to save Christians from the folly of secular society? I think the answer is actually both. But during bad times, I would argue that saving Christians is the higher priority.

I just don’t see the point in spending significant energy and resources on a fight over secular law at this juncture. Yeah, let’s fly the flag of decency and not go silently into the night. However we should also recognize that caesar is going to define his law as he wishes to define it.


18 posted on 08/21/2010 9:25:45 PM PDT by RKBA Democrat (Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics, and victors study demographics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat
I reckon the early Christians didn’t fret much over the Roman empire’s definition of marriage. We shouldn’t either.

Uh, what do you know about the empire's definition of marriage?

Roman Laws against Homosexual acts.

Read down to the bottom.
19 posted on 08/21/2010 9:43:27 PM PDT by Antoninus (It's a degenerate society where dogs have more legal rights than unborn babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat
However we should also recognize that caesar is going to define his law as he wishes to define it.

That may be. But at the very least, we must make it absolutely clear that Caesar is no Christian when he's supporting homosexual "marriage." And that stance must be maintained whether Caesar happens to be Barry O'Bama, Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, or Glen Beck.
20 posted on 08/21/2010 9:45:57 PM PDT by Antoninus (It's a degenerate society where dogs have more legal rights than unborn babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat

Defeatism is merely being an assistant to evil.

This is way beyond secular law about marriage, and affects anyone who does not want to be dominated by a tiny percentage of the population who identify as homosexuals, and their assistants on the left.

It affects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, education, and more. It affects almost every aspect of life. It is far from narrow.

Anyone who does not want rules of society which influence the workplace, free speech, education, the court system, and a host of other fields totally changed to make the homosexual version of “reality” the dominant, default version, should be willing to fight this.

Christians, Jews, Hindus, and non-religious people should all be fighting this together.

If you’re pessimistic, don’t infect others with your defeatism. Cowards should be ashamed of their cowardice.

“Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.”

C. S. Lewis


21 posted on 08/21/2010 9:47:40 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
In the last few years, the modern version of the hippie-free love movement now says marriage is the most important thing you can have, but only IF YOU ARE GAY!

Like most things the sodomites covet, they only covet it because they can't have it (in reality.) So they want to subvert it - destroy it - for everyone else.

22 posted on 08/22/2010 12:26:04 AM PDT by fwdude (Anita Bryant was right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat
I reckon the early Christians didn’t fret much over the Roman empire’s definition of marriage. We shouldn’t either.

Actually, we should.

That's what the article is about.

23 posted on 08/22/2010 1:38:41 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat

Where are you going?


24 posted on 08/22/2010 3:17:29 AM PDT by Jacquerie (Democrats soil institutions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

“But at the very least, we must make it absolutely clear that Caesar is no Christian when he’s supporting homosexual “marriage.”

Caesar is not Christian, period. There may have been a time when caesar was, but those times are behind us.

But we are Christian. So why do we buy in to caesars’ redefinition of marriage when we obtain a secular marriage license?


25 posted on 08/22/2010 6:42:33 AM PDT by RKBA Democrat (Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics, and victors study demographics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

“Where are you going?”

The essence of my point of view is that caesar defines the rules for secular marriage as caesar sees fit. Our duty as Christians is to render onto caesar that which is caesars’. No more, no less.

Caesar is not Christian. We are. Caesar does not require Christians to obtain a secular marriage license in order to marry within the church. My suggestion is to not obtain the secular license. Doing so merely provides added legitimacy to the secular license. Obtaining the license also increases the taxes that most married Christians pay (the marriage penalty). Sort of like a secular version of the dhimmi tax.

So why do we do this?

As for homosexual secular marriage, it will come and go in the next couple of generations. I don’t see the point in getting all up in arms over it. Lot left the sodmites and gomorrahans to their fate. We should as well.


26 posted on 08/22/2010 7:54:42 AM PDT by RKBA Democrat (Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics, and victors study demographics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat

Okay, the point of the column eludes you.


27 posted on 08/22/2010 8:53:32 AM PDT by Jacquerie (Democrats soil institutions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Same sex ‘marriage’ is wrong first because it seeks to normalize deviant behavior. If we go down that road of normalizing deviancy it destroys the culture and replaces it with something different, something which has normalized deviancy. Deviants and their dead-soul apologists of course seek exactly that, to nromalize any and all manner of deviancy in order to end the culture as we have inherited it.


28 posted on 08/22/2010 9:02:12 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Dem voters, believing they cannot be deceived, it is impossible to convince them when deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat; little jeremiah
In order to preserve a semblance of normalcy in which our Christian children may avoid the deviant life style, we Christian must stand againt the normalization fo deviancy. And deviancy is not limited to the soul-sick sexual degenerates seeking same sex 'marriage'. Licencious behavior of many forms is also deviancy.

Ought we Christians not have a say in setting the societal taboos? ... We had better, in a nation founded upon Christianity. You can bet the mooselimbs will define society by their Sharia, if this fails to remain a nation founded upon and functioning--even at a stumble--on Christian principles.

The Democrat party's normalization of slaughtering alive unborn fellow humans ought to tell you that we have to draw the line somewhere, we Christians. Or are you more comfy with cinos, Christians in name only?

29 posted on 08/22/2010 9:10:14 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Dem voters, believing they cannot be deceived, it is impossible to convince them when deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN; RKBA Democrat

I cannot understand this defeatism. You say you’re a Christian, do you think the early Christians were spineless, hopeless defeatists? Or did they fight evil and ingnorance?

Basically you’re saying let everyone go to hell and hide in your hole.

The default of civilization is either morality based on Universal Natural Law based on God’s words not just in the Bible but in every religion, or the mind of man, which is whimsical and prone to evil. There is no “neutral” or third option. Since our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, if these are jettisoned (which is happening at a great rate of speed), the hell that will ensue if people who see the need do not fight (as you advocate), you cannot imagine the depths of violence and depravity that will of a certainty be happening - legislated - in the near future.


30 posted on 08/22/2010 9:17:06 AM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

“Cowards should be ashamed of their cowardice.”

Actually, cowardice is going along to get along. My apologies if I tend to state the truth that I see rather than that which I would like to see.

37 years ago, infanticide was made legal in this country. And despite millions of dollars spent, millions of hours of volunteer hours being donated to change it, the reality is that with some few exceptions, infanticide is just as legal as it was in 1973.

Now let’s look at the issue of homosexual marriage. Despite the resources spent, and the millions of votes cast, it’s now the law of the land, at least in our largest state. And unlike infanticide where there were 9 judges, one judge was sufficient to establish law on this issue.

The issue is not one of defeatism. It’s one of denial. The state of denial that too many Christian conservatives are in with regard to secular politics and law.


31 posted on 08/22/2010 12:02:56 PM PDT by RKBA Democrat (Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics, and victors study demographics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat
The issue is not one of defeatism. It’s one of denial. The state of denial that too many Christian conservatives are in with regard to secular politics and law.

This statement is unclear. It sounds as though you mean that Christians (I would expand that to anyone with faith in moral absolutes, as this is not a sectarian or denominational issue, as religious Jews and Hindus share the same basic moral views, heck, even real Buddhists, and many non-overtly religious people do too) should just let society go to hell and just try to maintain their own standards and principles in their own houses or houses of worship. Basically withdraw from any efforts on the world to steer the public, society, standards or laws in the direction of moral absolutes that are the very foundation of human civilization.

Is this what you mean?

32 posted on 08/22/2010 12:13:22 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

“Okay, the point of the column eludes you.”

Oh. I get the points just fine. I simply reject the clarion call to further secular action. And in this forum, that is heresy.


33 posted on 08/22/2010 12:15:30 PM PDT by RKBA Democrat (Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics, and victors study demographics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat; little jeremiah

What is with all of your irrelevant Caesar stuff?

We are supposed to be a self governing people within the limits of Natural Law. While acceptance of homosexuality within declining civilizations is nothing new, enshrining the perversion in marriage is.


34 posted on 08/22/2010 12:53:05 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Democrats soil institutions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

America is being attacked with propaganda that hits the youth with something they have been educated to belive is ok anyway.

Bring Children into the world is a situation that creates a win win if society helps....thus Marriage. Producing Children keeps the human race alive and growing. Win Win. Two people with the predetermined purpose of not having children, o...n purpose now, does not merit the help of society since that union is one that does not assist in keeping the human race alive, but instead, in a very selfish way, seeks only its own selfish objectives.

Why should society help a movement that for the human race is suicidal?


35 posted on 08/22/2010 1:12:52 PM PDT by TomasUSMC ( FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

“We are supposed to be a self governing people within the limits of Natural Law.”

Supposed to be, but aren’t. Social conservatives have little to no voice in secular governance.

“While acceptance of homosexuality within declining civilizations is nothing new, enshrining the perversion in marriage is.”

It’s amazing how moral decay is being embraced rather than resisted.


36 posted on 08/22/2010 1:37:22 PM PDT by RKBA Democrat (Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics, and victors study demographics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat

So you’re saying that people pushing and promoting perversion and immorality should have the field to themselves and anyone with traditional aka “real” moral viewpoints should keep them to themselves and not try to influence the culture, society, laws, or government at all.

Please clarify your position. If I’m reading you wrong, let me know how, since that seems to be quite clearly your position.

And let’s leave “Christians” out of this - anyone of any religion or none that shares those same moral values is on the same side.


37 posted on 08/22/2010 1:51:38 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat

Could you read my comment I posted a while ago and reply to it, since you’re still in the discussion?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2574954/posts?page=31


38 posted on 08/22/2010 1:52:54 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Ted Olson, the anointed “conservative” by the drive-by media liars argued there is a “right to marry” in the Constitution.

Olson on Fox news, is now arguing there is a “right to build” in the Constitution.

Since Islamic law allows a man to have four wives, will Terd Olson argue they have a “right to marry” as well???

The Second Amendment is illegal in NYC.

These legal hacks like Terd Olson have given us endless, cascading rivers of lies about why an American citizen cannot own a gun in NYC, but now they want to tell me that a foreign enemy has Constitutional rights they would routinely deny a citizen of this country?

Maybe this mosque will perform polygamous gay marriages and Ted Olson is angling for a black burqa judicial appointement from Sodom Hussein Obama...


39 posted on 08/22/2010 1:56:13 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen; Irisshlass; informavoracious; larose; RJR_fan; Prospero; Conservative Vermont Vet; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

40 posted on 08/22/2010 1:57:53 PM PDT by narses ( 'Prefer nothing to the love of Christ.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat

Evolution is only possible with heterosexual relationships...


41 posted on 08/22/2010 1:58:12 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

“Basically withdraw from any efforts on the world to steer the public, society, standards or laws in the direction of moral absolutes that are the very foundation of human civilization. Is this what you mean?”

No. My point is more in the nature of picking your battles. This one is already lost, at least for the time being. And I don’t see that we’re going to be able to pick many others in the years to come. For a historical parallel, this is looking an awful lot like circa 400-500 a.d.


42 posted on 08/22/2010 6:39:24 PM PDT by RKBA Democrat (Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics, and victors study demographics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

“Evolution is only possible with heterosexual relationships.”

I agree. Homosexuality doesn’t allow much opportunity for procreation.


43 posted on 08/22/2010 6:42:47 PM PDT by RKBA Democrat (Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics, and victors study demographics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat

So you accept defeat. Already lost when the majority of Americans do not want “gay” marriage? When the more info gets out about the real nature of the homosxual agenda, more people will wake up?

You’re either a hopeless Eeyore defeatist or trying to instill hopelessness and defeatism.


44 posted on 08/22/2010 7:05:53 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

“So you accept defeat. Already lost when the majority of Americans do not want “gay” marriage?”

So what? And the majority of Americans don’t want infanticide, either. And 37 years after Roe v Wade, it’s still the law of the land. And 5 years from now, it’ll still be the law of the land.

FWIW I’m actually very hopeful on the infanticide front. It WILL disappear. And it’ll have little if anything to do with efforts to change the secular law. It’ll have everything to do with women deciding not to kill their unborn offspring.

And that’s much the way this issue will play itself out. Eventually, homosexual marriage will no longer be an issue. And it’ll have nothing to do with our collective awareness or efforts to change secular law.

“You’re either a hopeless Eeyore defeatist or trying to instill hopelessness and defeatism.”

I’m neither. And your ad hominem attacks on my character are becoming tedious. You’re a smart person and from what I’ve seen, a good one. You can do better.


45 posted on 08/22/2010 7:34:46 PM PDT by RKBA Democrat (Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics, and victors study demographics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat

Still the law of the land, with many fewer abortion “doctors”, many aborion “providers” closed, and many young people for life.

Change is happening precisely because people have not given up with a hopeless, defeatist attitude.

I’m not making ad hominem attacks. I’m disagreeing with your message of defeatism and hopelessness.


46 posted on 08/22/2010 10:17:15 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Krishna, this is Arjuna... Can I shoot Bisma with my arrows now?


47 posted on 08/24/2010 7:57:12 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
Arjuna didn't want to shoot Bhisma. But Krishna wanted him to, so he did. And Bishma felt the arrows as love bites. Bhisma wasn't the enemy; just to destiny he had to fight on the wrong side. Dhritarashtra's sons, however, were the enemy.

The whole battle between Arjuna and Bhsima was one of love - impossible to comprehend without seeing the internal bhakti of Bhisma.

Then Bhisma lay on his bed of arrows for a long time - some months, IIRC, as he had the benediction from his father that he would quit his body only when he wanted to.

He left the world in the presence of Krishna, Arjuna and his brothers, and many great saints and rishis. Here is one of my favorite verses:

Suta Goswami said:

Thus Bhiskmadeva merged himself in the Supersoul, Lord Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, with his mind, speech, sight and actions, and thus he became silent, and his breathing stopped.

Knowing that Bhismadeva had merged into the unlimited eternity of the Supreme Absolute, all present there became silent like birds at the end of day.

I think arrows may fly, sometime fairly soon. Some kind of arrows.

48 posted on 08/24/2010 8:32:40 PM PDT by little jeremiah (.Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson