Skip to comments.Glenn Beck Defends Gay Marriage: Republicans Need To 'Expand Our Own Horizon'
Posted on 12/11/2012 9:48:27 AM PST by SeekAndFind
click here to read article
Very well said. Somehow or other, I'm not shocked by the FReetards on this board that dont see the irony of their whining about liberal tyrannical tendencies and completely ignore their own. As Glenn says, Republicans ARE the Whig party.
I think this cements his status as a “false prophet.” Anyone disagree?
Is there an end to the communist manifesto implementation and infiltration of every walk of life? Do people who call themselves “ Consevatives” need to be loved by the media, perverts and most of all communists?
I guess so if you want to make more millions, not be called a kook, but be mentioned as a “reasonable conservative” who saw the light at the end of a tunnel where the sun doesn’t shine.
Pounding Conservatives to pulp has become a national sport by their own so called “Conservatives!”
I think Beck is looking for some kind of judo trick to resolve this problem, looking for a way to thread the needle. He isn’t alone in this, I think a lot of political people are since there are other things they’d rather fight about; they’d prefer to shift the battle to a field of their choosing.
But sometimes that simply isn’t possible. You have to simply draw the line and refuse to cross it. You have to fight the enemy where he has chosen to fight you.
Well, there’s a difference between real libertarians (who would understand and reject the statism that is implied in same-sex marriage laws under the status quo) and fake libertarians (who are really just 60s radicals pushing to destroy Western Civilization by attacking its traditions and institutions).
Conservative and Orthodox religions *should* be at the forefront to “take marriage back” from government.
The way to do this is to first to agree among themselves what standards should exist, that all agree are the basic requirements for marriage. Then those that permit divorce agree among themselves what basic standards exist for divorce.
This is the baseline for all. Each religion may “add to” these requirements, but they cannot “delete from them.”
Then the hard part: all must agree to *only* recognize marriages and divorces that conform to these standards. That is, in their religion, *only* those people who have been married and/or divorced under these rules will be considered married.
That is, “You may call yourself ‘Mr.’ and ‘Mrs.’, and say you are married, but as far as all of these religions are concerned, you are *not* married, but instead are ‘living in sin’.”
Importantly, along with their religion, this permits people who belong to that religion to discriminate against people who are “not married but say they are”. That is, nobody has to accept that “government marriage” is equal to “religious marriage” anymore.
Remember Glenn Beck is a MORMON and the thing that kept Deseret(Utah) out of the United States until the late 1800s was that “Church’s” Perversion and attepted re-definition of the G*D’s Institution of Marriage(Poligamy). Until the MORMONS renounced this perversion THEN the United States Congress voted and accetpted them into the Union.
So why confine marriage to just two consenting adults?
And of course you get it that you want a gigantic govt with fingers in everything just like liberals do, you just disagree with them as to the type of gigantic opressive govt?
No Beck, we don’t need to “expand our horizons” in the direction of liberalism.
The horizons that established this most successful land are the Bible, Freedom, the Gun, and the Constitution. “Expanding” past those solid principles is saying we have to be something different.
Glen, if you want to expand your whatever, you go ahead, but count me out.
If religion defines marriage then there is no definition, because there is no defined religion.
Excellent. As long as you know, the difference between you and a liberal is only in what kind of gigantic govt.
Really? The natural rights of life and liberty are UNALIENABLE.
"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred."
You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the CREATOR to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Beck is very confused in this. Just as he was very confused in his effective endorsement of Martin Luther King, a couple of years ago. King stood for the exact opposite of the socio/economic values that Beck ordinarily supports.
God defines all non-empirical reality - apart from God there is no such thing. And God has defined marriage as the union between a man and a woman. That is an unalterable fact, regardless of what some "religion" may say.
Good for them.
Open letter to conservatives who back same-sex marriage
Exclusive: David Kupelian on unintended consequences of pretending homosexuality is normal
If Americas unique magic was combining, as Tocqueville said, the notions of Christianity and of liberty to produce the greatest nation in history, todays libertarian-conservatives seem to have lost sight of half of that winning combination the God part vainly imagining that freedom alone is the answer.
Yet the libertarian utopia live any way you want, even if it includes being a drug addict, having abortions, frequenting prostitutes (all of which libertarians want legalized), so long as it doesnt hurt other people, and yet somehow we can still manage to be citizen-sovereigns ruling over a small, responsible government is every bit as fatuous and illusory as the utopia that socialists forever dream of. Neither has ever existed, nor ever will. For as we all know deep down, there is no lasting freedom without adherence to, as Jefferson put it, the Laws of Nature and of Natures God. Or as William Penn warned, If man is not governed by God, he will be ruled by tyrants. Thus, in todays grand morphing of Reagan conservatism into libertarianism, we simply kid ourselves into thinking an immoral society can be free.
Beck not only jumped the shark, he rode it, then got devourced. Seems a lot of Mormons are fine with perversion.
Like Harry Reid, mormons will choose church over country every time. That includes when they are told to turn in their weapons, and to spy on those who don't.
Newsflash: the base isn't going to follow you to Sodom. Wise up or be washed up.
And the great thing for lawyers with regard to "gay marriage" will be the number of job opportunities in "gay divorce"!
Beck portrays himself as being a God fearing Christian. He espouses the need for all to return to Judeo-Christian principles as prescribed in the Bible. His support for gay marriage clearly exposes him as a Christian fraud. Calling Rick Warren!
How do you do that? Our laws governing pensions, survivor benefits, etc. depend on a definition of marriage and recording it. 20% of the population are atheists.
We have religions like Islam that permit up to four wives. How should they be treated?
The government has been involved with marriage since the inception of the Republic. We have laws against incest, polygamy, marrying children, etc. Should those laws be eliminated and leave it up to individuals to decide?
Bye bye America. Liberal fools are working overtime to stick a finger in the eye of God.
OK, let’s really expand our horizons. Let’s say anything goes and just once and for all do away with all those messy, moral strictures that have encumbered us for the past few millenia. Welcome everybody in no matter what they do, or who they do it to. Then we’ll have the super-duper ultimate big tent to end all big tents.
I’ve never understood the appeal of all this gay crap. I watched a slideshow of same-sex “marriages” in Washington after it became legal, and it was all I could do to refrain from throwing up.
I need to correct you on an important point.
This also applies to the 1978 change accepting blacks.
Mormons and the media give the impression that these were policy changes, or administrative, or management changes, but they weren't.
Remember that it was GOD WHO CHANGED HIS POLICY regarding polygamy and blacks, and then instructed the Prophet.
Mitt Romney's Holy Prophet for instance, in 1978 was told that he (GOD) had changed his mind on blacks.
At some point, Beck and Romney will be the GOD of their own planet, and they will be making these decisions for that planet's holy prophet.
One of their bishops already, personally, married same sex couples years ago. They already permit and condone what is an abomination to God. That is what cults do.
If enough people did this, it wouldn't matter what the Gay's out in San Fransisco did.
Nope. That Brass Ring of Government Power is out there. They just gotta make a grab for it rather than just LIVE YOUR PRINCIPLES.
I’d sensed several times before that Beck was pretty close to embracing fag marriage, when the topic arose. So it doesn’t entirely surprise me that he’s come out in favor of this degeneracy.
I’ve long been on the fence about Beck, who has always been a weird mix of positives and negatives. But this is enough for me to pretty much drop him for keeps. He can just go to Hell.
In America, Islam and Mormonism counts as much as your religion, so if there is no legal definition of marriage, and everyone just decides for themselves, then the left wins.
Why stop there, Glenn?
Why not support two men and a women?
Five women together?
3 Men and 3 women all married to each other?
A 30 year old and a 10 year old?
A man married to two different women in different parts of the country at the same time?
What would be the legal or moral opposition to those?
Because they are too “weird” but two guys or two girls being married is “normal”?
When that happens, watch the fur fly between PETA and the deviants.
Throwing off restraints is like those coin funnels used for fundraising.
It all starts slow, but before you know it things are spinning out of control. I've read that these "hyperbolic" funnels mimic a Black Hole.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
I would have thought that Glenn can see that the ongoing battle is NOT about letting gays do whatever they wish (that's legal,) but the insistence on calling it "marriage."
The gays, and their supporters, including legislators can call it "Nirvana," and imbue it with all the legal benefits of marriage, without the need to mock hundreds of years of tradition and legally insisting that is IS marriage.
Call me anything you wish, but I will never accept marriage as anything other than the union of one man and one woman ------ period.
What would YOU know about conservatives? Don't talk about what you don't know. Get back under your big tent where all the losers are! Watch out who you back into - they are a friendly all inclusive bunch.
1st Amendment is Federal. It has a clause limiting it's scope to the FedGov under "Congress shall make no law"...
DOMA opened up a Federal can of worms and these are the fish you are catching.
Examples are many. Property rights, for one. If society can make a mockery of family formation, why not make a mockery of property rights to appease the Marxists. Property rights & marriage (family formation) have been virtually inextricably connected, virtually throughout Western History. Magna Carta, in recognizing immediate property rights, recognized the inheritability of those rights--that has to do with family, slice it as you will.
There is room for a big tent; there is no room for humoring every wacko idea, in order to try to do the impossible--i.e., make sure every dissident in that "big tent" is happy. Nothing is more clearly self-defeating; self-destructive.
Absolutely! “Marriage” is the union of a man and woman....a male human and female human...in body and soul. Those two elements must be present. Whether the union produces offspring or not is irrelevant.
Bodily contact between two of the same sex for mutual gratification is not mating.
I recall Rush once pulling a big “liberals are right, I’ve changed my mind” stunt long ago. It was a stunt. I hope this is too.
I don't have that option any more because someone thought giving government that level of power was a good idea. "Let's punish the sodomites! We'll ALWAYS be in control!"
Yeah... Not so much.
“And the great issue now of homosexuality in your country, that shall be on the balance that Michael holds. Unless this balance is evened by removing this evil from your country and bringing in just laws to prevent the spread of homosexuality, you cannot be saved; your country cannot be saved. Because I repeat again, as I have repeated in the past: When a country has given itself over to immorality and all pleasures of the flesh, and abominations of the flesh, then that country will fall! If you do not believe Me, My children, I say: You will read your history books, and you will find out that there was a Sodom and Gomorrha. And what did We do to that abominable city, Sodom? We destroyed it! And what did We do to Gomorrha? We destroyed it! And We destroyed all who did not follow the plan for their redemption.” - Jesus, November 1, 1985
How do you get government out of marriage, unless there is no such thing as marriage?
From out of the closet into your classrooms. So much for “consenting ADULTS in PRIVATE”.
The culture is f***ed. These are the same perverts who push the Sex Positive Agenda (the homosexual agenda merely being the battering ram to society’s norms). Condoms in schools was not about ending teen pregnancy or disease (certainly didn’t work). It was about forever ending the argument over whether teen SHOULD be engaging and sex and shifting to WHEN.
Bang away on the foundation institutions of this country, Glenn.
And keep selling packrat supplies. You have little credibility this country with your morning drive time comedy schtick.
I’m sorry, you know me? Point proven. Critical thinker you ain’t.
Then how could marriage not exist? For that, you would need GOVERNMENT interference.
Am I to take it from your post that you’re pro theocracy and anti 1st ammendment?