Posted on 08/26/2011 2:51:16 PM PDT by ReformationFan
George Orwell said, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” When you tell the truth about homosexuality today, you can be sure that the central tools of deceit—name-calling and bullying—will be unleashed.
I recently was having a respectful conversation with a homosexual activist, but after I made a point he couldn’t answer he called me a “bigot.”
I asked, “What’s your definition of bigotry?”
He said, “Fear and intolerance.”
I said, “The definition of bigotry is not ‘fear and intolerance.’ It’s making a judgment without knowing the facts. I have written a book about the problems with same-sex marriage and the destructive medical consequences of homosexual behavior. So my convictions on those issues are based in fact not ‘bigotry.’ With all due respect, if anyone is engaged in bigotry it is you for judging my position as wrong without even knowing why I hold it.”
He was also falsely equating my opposition to a behavior as prejudice toward people who engage in that behavior. That’s the central fallacy in virtually every argument for homosexuality—if you don’t agree with homosexual behavior, you are somehow bigoted against people who want to engage in that behavior. How does that follow? If conservatives and Christians are “bigots” for opposing homosexual behavior, then why aren’t homosexual activists bigots for opposing Christian behavior? And if we are bigots for opposing same-sex marriage, then why aren’t homosexual activists bigots for opposing polygamous or incestuous marriage?
Everyone puts limits on marriage—if marriage had no definition it wouldn’t be anything. Recognizing that marriage is between a man and a woman is not bigotry, but common sense rooted in the biological facts of nature.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Yes, liberals do deem themselves morally superior to all of us lowly conservatives. I have never had a political discussion with some of the liberals in my family; that’s a road I would never want to go down. Even so, I have been ostracized by some because, in my opinion, they know I oppose the gay agenda and by default would not approve of my niece’s lifestyle. While I don’t approve I realize I don’t need to and I would respect her life’s choices w/o a word of judgement. But they’ve made up their minds about me because I am a conservative and to that I say, so be it.
The difficulty in tracking these statistics is both inherent and purposely contrived. Inherent because "gayness" is not objectively determinable by any scientific methodology, it is fully subjective. No medical specialist can perform an autopsy with unlimited, extensive testing on a deceased body and determine that the person was homosexual, absent any physiological damage and/or disease consistent with the lifestyle.
It is a purposely contrived obfuscation because homo-activist know that if the true facts were revealed and publicized, it would obliterate their agenda. Obituaries seem to be the best indicator and evidence so far. Ironically, as activist homosexuals become more "open" about their predilections, more evidence will become available concerning this destructive life choice. Their only hope is to stay ahead of the curve in public opinion before the blossoming truth gets out, when it's too late to do anything about it in law.
Marriage is a religious ceremony.
Actually, it's both. It's a societal institution in as much as society has an obligation to recognize the religious ceremony and commitments involved.
Who would enforce the promises made in this bond of marriage otherwise? The Church? Only by its authority to ex-communicate and otherwise discipline its adherents. As far as the real-world ramifications of marriage: spousal and child support, parental rights, property rights and the rights to inheritance, the state MUST be involved in officiating any conflict when they arise. Otherwise you have unlimited, harmful, deadly family feuds with children much of the time in the middle. It would inevitably be bloodbath.
It comes down to a distortion and a twisting of what used to be good. We figured that marriage licenses were a good thing when they were useful to prosecute polygamy, because back then cohabiting with someone who was not your legal spouse was a crime, and that was the way in which we could punish polygamy, however, first problems started with the fact that the laws against cohabitation around the nation got lax in enforcement, then following this, cohabitation grew in popularity. If you ask me about cohabitation, it doesn’t seem likely someone who cohabitates instead of marries would care much about marriage, then when the future arguments about how marriage is such an essential right rather than a sacrament, or that denying marriage to those who wants it hurts and causes suicide for some sad puppy points, it all builds up sympathy to turn what was good into something ugly and in contrast to it, now there is the demand that churches change their ways to accomodate behaviors that are vile, unsanitary, and God loves his children enough to discourage the committing of such acts.
Judeo-Christian tradition came a long way in terms of determining marriage. Marriages of society weren’t as stringent or as mutually beneficial when you look historically, as were the Israelite and later Jewish marriages. In most cultures, it was not wrong to have sex with some prostitute for the sake of worshipping a nature/fertility goddess, while you were married. Whereas if some woman were not ceremoniously your wife by religion (singular or plural) it was considered adultery for sexual relations with her, it was also wrong to have pre-marital sex too. Well, in case you wondered, religious marriage deserves to be above society’s standard, and this is made all the more true with today’s trends.
read, if religion is a requirement of marriage, then those without religion can’t get married. the logic contained in your words not mine.
“...read, if religion is a requirement of marriage, then those without religion can’t get married. the logic contained in your words not mine.”
Exactly. And? Do you have a point to make somewhere? Anywhere? If you want to get a non-religious “civil ceremony” have at it. If you want a marriage, do it in a church, where marriages SHOULD take place. Between one man and one woman.
If it’s in a church, WTF DOES THE GUBMINT HAVE TO DO WITH IT?
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.