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

Skip to comments.

What is Next for Same-Sex Marriage Advocates?
Right Side News ^ | 10/1/2011 | Victoria Cobb

Posted on 10/02/2011 8:56:54 AM PDT by IbJensen

Proponents of same-sex marriage are quick to claim that all they want is “marriage equality.” Nothing more. They’ll be content if they can just have “equality.” But we all know that reality doesn’t end there. In recent weeks, same-sex advocates have finally begun to admit it themselves.

Published just days ago in a The New York Times piece, Stanford law professor Ralph Banks, asks, “What now of the two remaining criminal prohibitions of intimate relationships: incest and polygamy? Even as same sex … relationships are accepted, Americans are now imprisoned for incest and polygamy … Over time, our moral assessments of these practices will shift … Should a state be permitted to imprison two cousins because they have sex or attempt to marry? Should a man and two wives be permitted to live together as a family when they assert that their religious convictions lead them to do so?” » If you like this article, please subscribe to our daily newsletter

Just the rantings of a left-wing professor? No, Professor Banks’ words have actually proven to be prophetic. Just days after the Governor of New York signed its same-sex marriage bill into law, a man in Utah along with his four wives were inspired to file a lawsuit challenging Utah’s polygamy ban stating “We only wish to live our private lives according to our beliefs.”

Just equality, right?

Homosexual rights advocate Dan Savage goes even further and continues the marriage muddling, arguing, “We aren’t wired for monogamy.” He tells the New York Times magazine that America needs a more “realistic” view of marriage and that it’s the LGBT community’s responsibility to bring “open relationships” to the definition of marriage – to create an environment that’s “more forgiving of the occasional affair.” Savage’s “It Gets Better” homosexuality campaign targets children and teenagers and is being promoted by homosexual groups as an “anti-bullying” project to be used by public schools.

John Corvine, professor at Wayne State University, is heading in the same direction as Professor Banks and Mr. Savage. Reflecting on the same-sex marriage debate in New York, Professor Corvine writes, “It’s worth remembering that polygamy is quite ‘traditional,’ even biblical. It is no more logically connected to one side of this debate than the other. The truth is that New York granted same-sex couples marriage rights not because of a radical idea, but because of an old-fashioned one: when two individuals commit to a lifetime of mutual love and care, it’s good to support them – or at least get out of their way.”

When you stray from the God-given confines of marriage, where do you draw the line? How is it fair to term one meandering relationship “recognized” without validating the other variations? Where does it end?

Same-sex advocates have no intention of declaring victory in New York and calling it quits. The goal is not to advance “equality,” the goal is to redefine marriage until existing sexual norms are no longer in existence. Counterfeit forms of marriage cheapen and undermine real marriage. The union of a man and a woman in a committed marriage is the foundation of a stable society. Traditional marriage and family are too important for society to experiment with to advance a political agenda.

Social science and history concur: men, women, and children are more likely to succeed emotionally, financially, and educationally within a two-parent, mother-father, married family. Marriage, properly defined, matters. Regardless of the agenda of left-wing advocates, The Family Foundation will continue to fight to protect the definitions and institutions of marriage and family in our Commonwealth.

victoria_cobb_100_100


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: gaymarriage; homonazism; homosexualagenda; incest; pedophilia; polygamy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last
Give perverts their own private island where they can fornicate their brains out. Devil's Island is for sale...cheap!
1 posted on 10/02/2011 8:56:56 AM PDT by IbJensen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Abolishing the age of consent has been on their list for a very long time.


2 posted on 10/02/2011 8:59:51 AM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

After 1973, prolifers warned about euthanasia and suicide as a sacrament, and we were told we were crazy- it would NEVER go there. Where are we now? Same sex? Even as the APA is looking to end child molestation as an “illness”?

There is NO END to the perversion once you open that door.


3 posted on 10/02/2011 9:03:38 AM PDT by 13Sisters76 ("It is amazing how many people mistake a certain hip snideness for sophistication. " Thos. Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Crematories gets my vote


4 posted on 10/02/2011 9:04:48 AM PDT by SF_Redux (Sarah stands for accountablility and personal responsiblity, democrats can't live with that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a pedophile and pederasty advocacy organization in the United States that works to abolish age of consent laws criminalizing adult sexual involvement with minors,[2][3] and for the release of all men who have been jailed for sexual contacts with minors that did not involve coercion.[2][4] Some reports state that the group no longer has regular national meetings, and that as of the late 1990s to avoid local police infiltration, the organization discouraged the formation of local chapters.[4][5] An undercover detective around 1995 discovered that there were 1,100 people on the rolls.[4] As of 2005 a newspaper report stated that NAMBLA was based in New York and San Francisco, and that it held an annual gathering in New York City and monthly meetings around the country.[4]

NAMBLA has been defended by poet and rights advocate Allen Ginsberg[6][7] and gay rights activist Harry Hay.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA


5 posted on 10/02/2011 9:05:14 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

When incest and polygamy become legal I intend to marry everyone in my family. The tax advantages will be huge!


6 posted on 10/02/2011 9:07:51 AM PDT by Mr Ramsbotham (Laws against sodomy are honored in the breech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

To the headline: polygamy, after that the age of consent being lowered.


7 posted on 10/02/2011 9:12:16 AM PDT by svcw (Those who are easily shocked... should be shocked more often. - Mae West)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
"What is Next for Same-Sex Marriage Advocates?"

Take a guess.


8 posted on 10/02/2011 9:12:33 AM PDT by Iron Munro (Obama/Rangel/Pelosi Code of Ethics: Don’t do as I do. Do as I say.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

NAMBLA was a big part of the early gay rights movement


9 posted on 10/02/2011 9:12:54 AM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
"Homophobia" is not an unreasonable fear.

Sexual depravity is disordered and knows no limit or boundary. It will continue out of check until "heterosexuality" will be considered hate speech. Wait a minute...it already is. "Heterosexism" is now a charge, a condemnation.

Wrath is coming.

10 posted on 10/02/2011 9:14:24 AM PDT by nonsporting
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Disgusting.


11 posted on 10/02/2011 9:14:36 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Let’s not forget, gays, that your own president is against you on this. Start acting up at his events!!!!!


12 posted on 10/02/2011 9:18:03 AM PDT by sappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Abolishing the age of consent has been on their list for a very long time.

I believe that is exactly right.

How long before we start to hear about molestation of adopted children in homo and lesbian households?

The media won't be able to cover it up forever.


13 posted on 10/02/2011 9:20:29 AM PDT by Iron Munro (Obama/Rangel/Pelosi Code of Ethics: Don’t do as I do. Do as I say.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
Stanford law professor Ralph Banks, asks, “What now of the two remaining criminal prohibitions of intimate relationships: incest and polygamy?

He forgot to mention the big one the prog pervs are after -- pedophilia. They want NO age prohibitions.

14 posted on 10/02/2011 9:22:55 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro

The most common type of same sex parenting is by two lesbians. Dr. Dean Byrd, a psychiatrist testified that the “research clearly demonstrated that lesbian mothers had a feminizing effect on their sons and a masculinizing effect on their daughters. Boys raised by lesbian mothers behaved in less traditionally masculine ways, and girls, particularly adolescent and young girls raised by lesbian mothers, appear to have been more sexually adventurous and less chaste.”

A picture is worth a thousand words. Look at Zack (left) a boy raised by two mommies.

Dr. Byrd continued, “Children learn about male and female differences through parental modeling. The parental, mother-father relationship provides children with a model of marriage—the most meaningful, enduring relationship that the vast majority of individuals will have during their lives.”

Girls need their father’s approval to affirm their femininity and to eventually establish a bond with a man. Boys also need their father’s example to grow into strong independent men capable of leading families. All of this, the Bolshevik Masonic globalists are out to sabotage.

Society is in the grip of a long-term satanic conspiracy masquerading as “progressive” which is attempting to concentrate all wealth in the hands of the central bankers and their allies. They are re-engineering the human race to serve them in a neo feudal world order.

This is the real “hate” and we won’t be fooled or coerced.

http://www.henrymakow.com/samesex_adoption_is_child_abus.html


15 posted on 10/02/2011 9:24:59 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: nonsporting

Homosexuality is an acquired ‘taste’.

The most worthless segment of America’s population and one that causes the most trouble. Statistics prove that homosexuals (Self-hating gaggle of hell-bound misfits) have committed the large majority of serial murders in the world.

They’re not satisfied until they rub everyone’s nose in their evil. There is absolutely no way they can properly fit into a normal society without serious and deadly results.

Put that into your collective socialist pipes government sycophants and smoke it!


16 posted on 10/02/2011 9:25:13 AM PDT by IbJensen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro

I hear it happens a lot and gets no coverage. Did you see the articles about the 8 year old boy being raised by lesbians, he is on sex-change drugs!! That is child abuse to me.


17 posted on 10/02/2011 9:28:07 AM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen; little jeremiah
What's next is getting rid of "public forms of discrimination," for example by constructing unisex bathrooms, with couches. I'm not kidding.

In the town of Soquel, near Santa Cruz, CA, there is a Home Depot. In it, there are two bathrooms, one for "Men" and the other for "Family." The message is certainly not subtle.

18 posted on 10/02/2011 9:40:11 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (GunWalker: Arming "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as well funded")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
Advocates for same sex destroying marriage are wondering how they can further degrade the institution. It has never had anything to do with equality, and everything to do with making Mommy Government more appealing.
19 posted on 10/02/2011 9:40:14 AM PDT by kingu (Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

Speaking of NAMBLA, let’s not forget the praise Obama heaped on this guy:

“Kevin Jennings, President Obama’s Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug FreeSchools at the U.S. Department of Education, is in hot water this week for having failed to report that a 15-year-old sophomore student in his school had told him of having sex with an older man. —snip— statements by Jennings a decade or more ago when he praised Harry Hay of the North American Association for Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), which promotes the legalization of sexual abuse of young boys by older men”

(Washington Examiner)


20 posted on 10/02/2011 9:41:50 AM PDT by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo...Sum Pro Vita. (Modified Decartes))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

I bet it is punishing faiths that refuse to buy into the statist and homoxexualist take on marriage long before polygamy and incest are seriously persued.

Loss of tax exempt status, refusial to issue marriage licenses to those who won’t play ball with the state’s take on marriage, opening up civil lawsuits to those who cry discrimination.

They already have many convinced that marriage comes from the state, probably about 40% think that “gay marriage” is a civil rights issue, polygamy and incest are really far away, probably around the 1970 levels for “gay marriage.”

Freegards


21 posted on 10/02/2011 9:49:44 AM PDT by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Family means a father can safely take his daughter into the restroom or a mother can take her son in. Couches inside of restrooms are for women who need to attend to nursing their baby. These types of facilities are everywhere.


22 posted on 10/02/2011 9:50:37 AM PDT by Kirkwood (Zombie Hunter Hobbit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Whatever serves to further wreck the country....


23 posted on 10/02/2011 9:51:11 AM PDT by onedoug (If)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Family restrooms are for moms with small boys or dads with small girls. Chillax...


24 posted on 10/02/2011 9:51:46 AM PDT by AndrewB (FUBO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
where they can fornicate their brains out

For some reason this phrase made me snort into my coffee. :)

25 posted on 10/02/2011 9:59:31 AM PDT by Conservaliberty (Ancient Chinese Curse: "May you live in interesting times....and may you always get what you want.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kirkwood
Couches inside of restrooms are for women who need to attend to nursing their baby. These types of facilities are everywhere.

Um, I was a janitor once. There is no "Women's" restroom in the store.

26 posted on 10/02/2011 9:59:31 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (GunWalker: Arming "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as well funded")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

http://www.goatfinder.com/main_goat_directory.htm


27 posted on 10/02/2011 10:00:27 AM PDT by org.whodat (Just another heartless American, hated by Perry and his fellow democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndrewB
Family restrooms are for moms with small boys or dads with small girls. Chillax...

There is no "Women's" room in the store. And, yes, there is a changing table in the "Men's" room.

28 posted on 10/02/2011 10:02:32 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (GunWalker: Arming "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as well funded")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

What is next? The goal of course is a Sup Court imposition of gay marriage on the entire nation. They may be somewhat reluctant to push this all the way to the Sup Court now with traitor Ted Olson’s case because of the fear that Anthony Kennedy will have a good day and rule against them. But who knows how Kennedy will come down on this? And even if Kennedy were to rule correctly that there is no Constitutional right to have the state recognize same sex unions, then it wouldn’t be all that long until they try again with another Sup Court. And if Obama is reelected, then he’ll probably get to replace Kennedy and/or Scalia, and maybe Breyer as well. And even if Obama is defeated, then there is no guarantee a Republican president will choose wisely in replacing those guys based on history.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Kennedy tried to impose a ‘compromise’ by voting to impose recognition of same-sex unions, but giving us rubes the option of what we call it; gay marriage, or civil unions, or domestic partnerships, or whatever. This would please noone but ‘moderate’ Republicans, and again a later Sup Court would probably change it so that it must be ‘marriage.’

It’s sad but true, but really the most conservatives can hope for now is a lasting Sup Court decision that says if the State recognizes traditional marriage, there is nothing in the Constitution that compels it to do the same for same sex unions. This would likely mean that Kennedy gets it right sometime in the next few years whenever the issue finally gets there, and then the election of a Republican president and Senate next year and the replacement of good and bad judges now with new conservative judges.

This would mean that the matter rightly stays with the states where it belongs. In those states where the people have got to vote, it means traditional marriage will continue to be the only recognized union. Despite changing polling data, there is almost no chance the people will actually vote down state marriage amendments they passed in the last 10 years or so. At least, I don’t think it will happen anytime soon.

My guess is that if it comes to be that the Sup Court will not impose gay marriage, then the Left will try economic coercion. I could easily see them pressuring Google, Ford, GM, et al not to open new facilities in states that ‘hate.’

But if the Left prevails in the Sup Court then it is over. We’ve failed miserably in doing away with Roe, and it would be no different with a Roe-like decision on gay marriage. With changing views, I don’t think a federal Amendment could pass that defines marriage traditionally. I use to think that at a minimum an Amendment could pass that stops short of banning gay marriage, and instead explicitly empowers the states to handle the matter and strips the courts, but now I doubt that would pass either.


29 posted on 10/02/2011 10:12:07 AM PDT by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
Just the rantings of a left-wing professor? No, Professor Banks’ words have actually proven to be prophetic. Just days after the Governor of New York signed its same-sex marriage bill into law, a man in Utah along with his four wives were inspired to file a lawsuit challenging Utah’s polygamy ban stating “We only wish to live our private lives according to our beliefs.”

Here is something which confuses me. We are hearing a lot about the Mormons and their polygamy in conjunction with the homosexual movement. But are not Mormons vehemently opposed to homosexuality? Mormons, even though I disagree with their religion, are some of the most socially upright people I have ever met. They are law-abiding, patriotic, traditionally moral people. The only exception is the question of polygamy. Yet, I do not see how the Mormons will benefit from the whole marriage equality business, since they are opposed as a religious body to all forms of sexual perversion and inchastity.

I think that the homosexuals are using the Mormons' view of polygamy as a tool in this debate and nothing else. As soon as polygamy gets past you can bet that the homosexuals will turn viciously on the Mormons. A socially moral upright group like the Mormons is already likely to be accused of hate speech. Any Mormons out there in freepland who would like to weigh in on this thought? I am really curious. (Also, I know not all Mormons support polygamy, so I would really enjoy seeing a Mormon's view on this question.)

30 posted on 10/02/2011 10:16:07 AM PDT by Conservaliberty (Ancient Chinese Curse: "May you live in interesting times....and may you always get what you want.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

“Abolishing the age of consent has been on their list for a very long time.”

Yea, they’ve started re-activating the shrink world to ‘normalize’ pedophilia. No big surprise here.


31 posted on 10/02/2011 10:17:07 AM PDT by BobL (PLEASE READ: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2657811/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kingu
Advocates for same sex destroying marriage are wondering how they can further degrade the institution.

You hit the nail on the head. And their tools include complete and absolute domination of education which first makes available millions of vulnerable victims (pederasty, teacher rape) subject to their authority and their appetites. A human buffet set by the nanny state. But most important for their future machinations is the control over 'science' by peer review. Having taken over the major research institutions and most academic peer review committees within them, they can cite wildly biased, self-serving studies on whatever they set their sights on to destroy that 'prove conclusively' that for example, 'humans are not wired for monogamy'.Wired. Because in their simplistic view of science humans are mechanical automatons driven by chemistry not reason and incapable of having a change of heart.

32 posted on 10/02/2011 10:21:46 AM PDT by Calusa (The pump don't work cause the vandals took the handles. Quoth Bob Dylan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Aetius

“Despite changing polling data, there is almost no chance the people will actually vote down state marriage amendments they passed in the last 10 years or so. At least, I don’t think it will happen anytime soon.”

If I recall, the average of the pro-marriage amendments passed by 67%, and most of them passing in the middle of the last decade. Some came from very liberal states like Hawaii that decided the issue very early on in the wave of state amendments, and passed it by 68% in’98. By how much would it pass now? Or would it even pass? Of course in most states it will be a very long time if the trend continues as it has for the last several decades before the homosexualists can even hope to come close to challenging the pro-marriage amendments.

Prop. 8 only passed by 52% in 2008. If it is upheld by our black robed masters, look to see some sort of popular repeal process started. Same thing with the other states that passed amendments in the 50-60% ranges: as soon as the homosexualists think they have the numbers they will be screaming for a popular vote.

The time to pass a national pro-marriage amendment was the 90’s in my opinion, of course it wasn’t much of an issue then. A polygamy or incest amendment would pass now, but it would have to be specific to those issues, if it included gay marriage I don’t think it would get very far at all. But again, it isn’t an issue right now and so it can’t get a movement behind it. But that means it is the time to pass it. It’s a catch 22.

Freegards


33 posted on 10/02/2011 10:35:27 AM PDT by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
What is Next for Same-Sex Marriage Advocates?

Pedophilia, Bestiality, Mutilation, and every type of sexual perversion.

The ink wasn't dry on the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, before the "advocates" started pushing for the military to allow "transgendered" sickos (read: men who have a fetish to dress up in women's underwear and dykes who want to dress up like men) to be fully "accepted."

When sin in not only tolerated, but applauded, evil escalates exponentially.

34 posted on 10/02/2011 10:51:09 AM PDT by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Polygamy will be tough. On the one hand Mormons like it so it is bad and must be discouraged, on the other hand muslims like it therefore it is good and must be encouraged in the name of diversity. Maybe there will be a compromise, and polygamy will be allowed only for muslims


35 posted on 10/02/2011 10:57:42 AM PDT by dsrtsage (One half of all people have below average IQ...In the US the number is 54%)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
Q:  What is the reproductive fitness of two male penguins in the San Francisco Zoo.

http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Evolution-Behavior-Martin-Daly/dp/0871507676

 

A:  ZERO.

36 posted on 10/02/2011 11:02:37 AM PDT by LomanBill (Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nonsporting

>>”Homophobia” is not an unreasonable fear.

Nope. It’s as reasonable as not eating rotten food because it smells bad.

And ignoring either protective instinct is repeatedly observed throughout history to have negative consequences for the individuals and cultures who do so.


37 posted on 10/02/2011 11:05:04 AM PDT by LomanBill (Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

[When sin in not only tolerated, but applauded, evil escalates exponentially.]

Observe the order of precedence in Romans 1:25-26

Rom 1:25-26
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections...
KJV

“I KNOW BUT ONE CODE OF MORALITY FOR MEN WHETHER ACTING SINGLY OR COLLECTIVELY”
—Thomas Jefferson

Got socio/biological fitness? Those who abominate nature don’t.


38 posted on 10/02/2011 11:13:19 AM PDT by LomanBill (Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Heterosexual parents - fathers and mothers - should prepare their children to beware of unmarried pregnancies lest their offspring are adopted into a same sex household.

That has to be the most terrifying thought for a grandparent.

However, the cost of sperm & egg donations and rental wombs for IVF will see a huge increase in demand. Diabolical.


39 posted on 10/02/2011 11:47:52 AM PDT by sodpoodle (God is ignoring me - because He is watching you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Homosexual’s dream is the recreation of Ancient Greece where all people celebrated the grooming of young attractive boys into the life of sodomy with gifts and flattering attention. APA as well as UN bodies are removing all restrictions to man/boy sex. They have been reducing the age for children to have legal sex with adults for decades.

They need to corrupt young children with the normalizing of homosexuality which has been going on for decades, but intensely since Madsen and Kirk in the 1990’s. They control schools and curricula to corrupt and destroy Christian ethics and morality in children. Gay Pride Days and Day of Silence in the schools was the beginning of this normalization of perversions and destroying morality. Sexual immorality destroys people faster than all other types of immoral practices.

Using the term “marriage” in connection with homosexual was the beginning of undermining the concept of man and woman and the adoption of Karl Marx’s Hierarchy of Gender-—in which his silly notion that there is no difference between a woman and a man—so they are interchangeable—is throwing off all philosophy of our Founders-—that of Natural Law Theory.

Special Rights for “homosexual” perversion is irrational, nihilism, silly, and unconstitutional. There is no Right Reason according to Nature—the fundamental principles of our legal system.


40 posted on 10/02/2011 12:01:28 PM PDT by savagesusie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

rewriting schoolbooks and SAT questions that give moral equivalency to gay relations


41 posted on 10/02/2011 12:18:06 PM PDT by hecht ("Murray, use your coaster")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

I disagree with the argument of the article. It will not be polygamy or incest that is the next “progress” to be demanded, although that can’t be fought using the sodomites’ logic, but oppression of and the attempt to completely obliterate the Church of Jesus Christ. That has been their real target all along, because it has been Satan’s target, and Satan animates these degenerates.


42 posted on 10/02/2011 12:55:06 PM PDT by fwdude ("When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve ...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nonsporting

“Homophobia” is not an unreasonable fear.

I agree. I define Homophobia as : “A perfectly nature fear of behavior that is patently unnatural.”


43 posted on 10/02/2011 1:08:17 PM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: savagesusie

I don’t think pedophilia was nearly as common in ancient as the left wishes us to believe. From my reading older soldiers took young apprentices under their wing, I would bet the vast majority of these were not sexual at all.

It also doesn’t seem as accepted as they think either, even Wiki cites several written accounts opposing it


44 posted on 10/02/2011 3:25:01 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
He forgot to mention the big one the prog pervs are after -- pedophilia. They want NO age prohibitions.

No, he didn't forget ......

This is a staged assault on the institution of marriage, precisely because it is normal.

45 posted on 10/02/2011 3:38:44 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus (Concealed carry is a pro-life position.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Suing churches who won’t perform “marriages” for queers.


46 posted on 10/02/2011 3:48:21 PM PDT by j_tull (I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas; nonsporting
“Homophobia” is not an unreasonable fear.

I agree. I define Homophobia as : “A perfectly nature fear of behavior that is patently unnatural.”

Actually, homophobia is on the list of clinical disorders -- it's an unreasoning, psychologically abnormal, morbid fear of homosexuals. However, the way homosexual propagandists and agitators throw the word around is cant and abuse, and should be challenged every time.

47 posted on 10/02/2011 3:52:06 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus (Concealed carry is a pro-life position.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: j_tull; IbJensen
Suing churches who won’t perform “marriages” for queers.

....and eventually purging the chaplain corps of "non-reconciling" (Levitical, full-gospel) ministers and especially Catholic priests and Orthodox rabbis.

48 posted on 10/02/2011 3:55:46 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus (Concealed carry is a pro-life position.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: savagesusie
Sexual immorality destroys people faster than all other types of immoral practices.

There is a passage in the Bible about how adultery hardens the heart faster and more thoroughly than any other sin.

I think what these people are after is, quite precisely, the hardening of the human heart, throughout humanity.

They want to live in a world full of dragon's teeth.

49 posted on 10/02/2011 4:00:24 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus (Concealed carry is a pro-life position.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Ransomed

I agree that the time to pass an Amendment has come and gone. Had the Sup Court imposed gay marriage back in the 90s, then I think the votes would have been there to pass an Amendment. That we as a society have come to the point where we believe the only legitimate remedy to a blatantly unconstitutional decision by the Sup Court is to pass an Amendment or get the Court to reverse itself is another matter altogether, but the fact is that we live with judicial supremacy.

In hindsight it might have been wise to call out all of the Republican and Democrats who voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment for the stated reason that they didn’t think it was necessary. Remember in the debates, many no votes said that they oppose gay marriage, but they claimed to see no reason to pass a FMA because the federal courts were letting the states handle the matter. How many were being honest, and how many were bluffing? So it might have been a good idea for proponents of traditional marriage had instead got behind Senator Hatch’s alternative Amendment, which did not define marriage but instead explicitly empowered the states to handle the issue. Of course that would not have helped where imperious state courts have imposed marriage and the people have not had a chance to vote, but it would have probably protected the majority of the states which have passed state marriage amendments.

I think at the time too many conservatives were either too confident of their ability to eventually pass their preferred FMA, and/or they had a principled objection to what they saw as conceding defeat on having a national standard for marriage.

For me, the main problem with Hatch’s alternative was that by passing an Amendment that basically singled out an issue as being beyond the power of the Sup Court, it sort of lends credence to the bogus view that w/o such an explicit Constitutional exclusion then the Courts rightly have jurisdiction over any and everything else. But since we’ve long since crossed that bridge, since all other branches of govt have meekly accepted the Sup Court’s outrageous power grabs, then perhaps it would have been wise to get behind a lesser Amendment of the type Hatch proposed.


50 posted on 10/02/2011 5:50:31 PM PDT by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last

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