Skip to comments.Rush Limbaugh: Gay Marriage ‘Inevitable, ’Conservatives ‘Lost’
Posted on 03/28/2013 2:54:01 PM PDT by drewh
Conservative talk show how Rush Limbaugh said Thursday on his radio show that conservatives have lost the gay marriage debate and that it is now inevitable.
This issue is lost, he said. I dont care what the Supreme Court does. This is inevitable. And its inevitable because we lost the language on this. Limbaugh added that conservatives lost the debate because they allowed the term marriage to be bastardized.
As far as Im concerned, once we started talking about gay marriage, traditional marriage, opposite-sex marriage, same-sex marriage, hetero marriage, we lost, Limbaugh said. It was over.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Conservatives didn’t lose, society lost.
I don’t think we lost it here (not even sure it is lost, yet.)
We’re losing here the same way we are losing many other ways: the media and education.
Until we get strength back in these institutions, we’ll continue to lose.
Yep. Generations are being indoctrinated. They view us as dinosaurs. We have to discredit and trash the NEA and expose what is going on
> Were losing here the same way we are losing many other
> ways: the media and education.
You cannot win these. They must be destroyed.
Conservatives must get their children OUT of the government school collectives.
As long as conservatives buy into modern “public education”, the largest, most expensive, most destructive of all entitlement programs, they have bought the whole Leftist program.
A tiny segment of the gay population will ever get “married.” The astronomical rates of promiscuity and disease among active homosexuals will not budge.
The “legal” status of same-sex “marriage” will be used by Democrat activists to persecute Christians in every manner they can devise—which is what this is all about, anyway.
“We have to discredit and trash the NEA”
Those people are so entrenched that anything short of rounding them all up and putting them against a wall is doomed to fail.
Gay marriage will be followed by gay divorce. The ones who benefit the most will be the divorce lawyers, because gays are incapable of fidelity.
Libertarianism introduced a language and a fig leaf for natural born liberals to corrupt conservative/republican conversation, and to blur and confuse the lines dividing conservatives from rinos.
The catch phrase on the road to the gates of hell and to the end of civilization is, Im libertarian on social issues, but conservative on economics.
Get used to it folks, that is the new language of the Romney /Rockefeller wing of the GOP.
I don’t agree with Rush on this point.
Ditch the federal designation of marriage and the turd burglars won’t want it anymore.
RE: #5, agree 100%. There’s a reason Marx endorsed government indoctrination (I mean) education.
No, we view you and your generation as spineless quitters. Failed on abortion, failed on gay marriage.
It is normal in America to believe that your children can spend 12 years in a godless, communal (Communist) institution, and emerge believing in God and liberty.
We lost the fight a long time ago, as demonstrated by the fact that the GOPe is run by guys like Romney or Preibeus who think of Christians as inconveniences who make it harder for them to maintain power.
It’s time to dump these fools and continue to fight the good fight.
Good to see all the surrender ‘conservatives’ come out the woodwork.
As a nation, we’ve turn away from God. It’s time to stop sending missionaries to Africa and start sending to our local neighborhoods.
If you want to win back the culture, start building up the church.
If there is one thing I agree with him on is that language is the problem.
Liberals get away with changing it. They change their names from progressives to liberals back to progressives; they are currently changing Global Warming to Climate Change; they controlled the language with “Main Street vs Wall Street” when it was they that were the problem, they were the ones that created the housing mess.
Led by, none other than the gay POTUS. He’s good at leading when it comes to things destructive to our founding principles. As far as ‘constructive’, he’s not interested. Destruction is the mission.
We will never again be the kind of country we once were, "moral" but with religion treated subjectively. When the forces of evil are finally defeated it will be by Theocracy, and religious truth will be universally recognized as objective as any other truth.
Conservatives lament the "rights" the Left has produced in the past few decades, but the Founding Fathers gave us the non-existent "right" to practice idolatry. To condemn lesser sins while treating idolatry as unimportant illustrates an extremely skewed view of things.
IMHO Steve Deace is an excellent alternative.
I believe you are right—we lost the argument when we lost the Morals of the nation—But only a few “Gays” will ever wed. Next battle Polygamy (at least it’s in the Bible) and that will be next for the Progressives and their Arab buddies. But, these days will not last forever—each Progressive step takes us to a new America -— a Conservative one. Give em enough rope and...
Vigilantes in Mexico have taken over a corrupt town in Mexico because they’ve had enough of the ruin. And in America, Rush Limbaugh says we lost and tucks tail. It doesn’t have to be that way.
“By allowing decades of Marxist brainwashing to occur in our public schools,”
Nothing more to say.
We are done.
The way marriage could be won back is for the Orthodox religions to band together with any conservative Protestant faiths, to reassert that marriage is “solely” a religious sacrament, and that they will not recognize secular marriage.
This means that they only recognize sacramental marriages that each other conduct. Then different faiths may add to the requirements, but may not subtract from them.
This means that any of their particular faith who are married in other ways must be remarried in their faith, if their faith’s rules allow it.
As a group, these religions also must agree to a definition of divorce, and that secular divorce is not recognized, either.
To do this does take some intestinal fortitude on their part, but the alternative is what is being seen in Canada right now, where clergy are forbidden to say things written in the Bible, for fear of being prosecuted.
So it’s a simple choice. Stand up for what you believe in, or be swept away by a secular agenda that seeks to destroy you. Doing nothing is not an option.
If this is “lost,” then the country is lost.
Let it burn. No country left worth lifting a finger for anymore. Just a pathetic sewer of a country.
And that’s just it.
They’re far better at messaging. Look at that list you posted, and you can see a logical progression. From a marketing point-of-view, it’s brilliant.
...compared to Rush Limbaugh?
Orthodox Christian definition of divorce: Matt 19:6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.
It's that simple.
My mom remembered him from back in the day. She said you wouldn't know it by looking at him, but he was a talented musician once and, evidently, a very handsome young man.
Apparently, he caught syphilis and it ran its course. She let that sink in. Mom was almost a generation older than my friends parents. Medicine was different then, both in her day before and during The War and ours sitting in that 1973 GM car.
Growing up in small towns and seeing real life examples of the various consequences of years earlier behavior, whether missing fingers lost to a saw or some misbehaving farm equipment or a discombobulated brain and nervous system from not wearing a lead-lined prophylactics, or whatever it might have been, seeing them around me was helpful negative feedback for "getting my mind right" and avoiding similar consequences.
Things are different now...or so they seem. We've removed some of the negative feedback. Medicine has made acceptable and convenient what was once taboo and often deadly. I remember when AIDS first appeared and famous people began dying ugly deaths from this new mysterious illness.
I remember being surprised when I would hear that so and so was "gay", only that's not the word most people used. Whether famous people or the not so famous, all died slow, very scary ugly deaths.
Once we figured out that straight people could get it, and not just from a transfusion, real fear set in, and all around, briefly.
I remembered the occasional WWII VD posters when I was growing up. I remembered how things were prior to our guinea pigging those first vaccines against the deadly diseases once common to childhood. There was talk about what to do with this new epidemic. Would we lock "them" up and isolate? What if their blood got on you? If they sneezed on you? We fear what we dont understand, especially if it can kill us.
Medicine has removed the danger and with time, weve lost the fear, discarded the stigmas and moved forward, passing through acceptance, all the way to open armed embrace.
Interesting how far we've come down a once forbidden road, and so fast!
And, interesting that a deadly disease, something that once would have motivated an entirely different set and subsets of behaviors, is now, instead, an unnoticed stepping stone on that road, along the way to that embrace and beyond.
But, beyond to what? On this road weve been taken, what lies ahead? Is this a crossroads or an ambush?
This is a test.
There’s not much to disagree with him on this. The issue is lost. Apart from whatever the court does or doesn’t do... In the space of about a decade the fickle nature of “public opinion” has done a 180. As an older generation dies off and a fully-indoctrinated younger generation takes over, it is a fait accompli.
It’s not a good thing. But it’s a done thing.
good video (what I saw...no time for the whole thing)
Exactly, and how does it frame our side? This is the kind of messaging they have been hammering and hammering and hammering. I haven’t seen a single good example of a message like this come from our side.
We can’t take for granted that because something is right, that the message will naturally be the better one.
We have to start thinking like Democrats in how we market our message. They don’t just assume that because they believe their message is right, people will believe it. Instead, they look for any and every opportunity to manipulate the message and the audience to their way of thinking.
We don’t have to sacrifice our values but we have to change our approach.
One of big problems is that conservatives can be good at articulating what they believe but not why they believe it. And at some level conservatives are going to have to ask what exactly is it being defended and why? Also conservatives have to ask some basic philosophical questions about modernity. Some difficult ones like why equality is such an overriding goal of modernity? Is there a good argument against equality?
That’s what Rush is recognizing, though he didn’t say it in so many words.
Bob Dylan said it best.....”The Times, They Are A-Changin’.”
Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don’t criticize
What you can’t understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Please get out of the new one
If you can’t lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin’.
And that pretty eloquently sums it up, whether we like it or not.
I agree. Frankly, I can’t think of a good direct way to frame it to most people outside the ‘choir’. I have at least gotten several friends away from the liberal position to a libertarian position (I don’t even believe in that position but I wanted to at least bleed the libs a bit) by simply making a statement along the lines of ‘is there anything we can do any more that doesn’t require a government license?’.
I noticed a couple started picking up the ‘get government out of it’ mantra instead of the ‘make it legal’ mantra.
I had a comment I made to a gay friend that got him thinking and I’ve seen him repeat it (he was already libertarian so it fit his thinking.) ‘Do you really want the government keeping lists of who is gay?’
For the masses though who aren’t die-hard Conservatives, I have trouble thinking of a good manipulative argument to contrast what the left has come up with on this one. They have painted our side into a corner marketing wise.
The only argument against the idea of equality is that nature itself is a hierarchial institution. There will always be the dominant who have the natural right to wield power over the weak.
And we all know who made that argument most fervently in the Twentieth Century. He had a Charlie Chaplin mustache.
Oh yeah, and he led his country to ruin and destruction.
And that explains the problem precisely. It was never about "equality" in the first place. It was about, in the space of just a few years, the most radical change to civilization since the Bronze Age. A younger, dumber generation doesn't have the perspective yet to see that perhaps not everything that happened before they arrived was without value. Keep in mind... The generation that is now running things watches "The Daily Show" as their ONLY news source.
Sad truth is that we’ve lost the war on homosexuality & transexuality (worse than gays). In 1992, the discussion would be that there is something wrong with gay/lesbian behaviors & that there is something wrong with sex change mutilations-they must make it a crime to do sex changes.
But since 2000, discussion mainly is about marriage. & it’s not Democrat/Republican. Too many Republicans are apologists for gay/lesbian behaviors, so not a Democrat/Republican topic. Too many young people (those under 30 years old) see nothing wrong with gayism/lesbianism. When people see nothing wrong with gay/lesbian behaviors, then marriage becomes inevitable as Mr. Rush H. Limbaugh said. All you posters who are my age (born 1969) & older know that when it comes to information war, we have lost this on the gay/lesbian topic because too many young people (again those under 30 years old) see nothing wrong with gayism/lesbianism & transexuality & this isn’t 1992 anymore where many to most people would agree with us that there’s something wrong with gayism, lesbianism & transexuality.
You’re right. Especially when things such as California public schools having a day to honor homosexual statutory rapist Harvey B. Milk along with fairy tales of Laramie Project are done in public schools with taxpayer $s, where opposing views are censored.
While gays/lesbians have filthy sexual behaviors, if gays & lesbians want to privately honor homosexual statutory rapist Harvey B. Milk & not push their views on schoolchildren, then that’s 1 thing. But what’s sad is that they do it in public schools & kids who tell truth of who Harvey B. Milk was get censored.
Must say that the Laramie Project & the Shepard Foundation which includes Judy Peck Shepard see nothing wrong with Harvey B. Milk committing homosexual statutory rape on a 16 year old boy in 1964. With Laramie Project & Judy Peck Shepard, honestly, Judy Peck Shepard’s interest is to profit from her son’s death by writing a book & she makes money off of this. These other things are more proof that we have lost information war that too many people see nothing wrong with gayism/lesbianism & transexuality, especially when public schools in California require students to honor homosexual statutory rapist Harvey B. Milk.
I guess it depends on one’s perspective. I am not saying there won’t be some kind of perversion of the institution of marriage...but as far as I know, no civilization has lasted that has embraced and celebrated sodomy.
The namesake city, for instance—Sodom. Or the Greeks. Or Roman Empire.
And the United States is not immune—as she has continued to murder unborn innocents, enslave millions into dependence, and now seemingly moving toward a celebration of perversion, she will also suffer dire consequences.
Revival is what is needed: a spiritual awakening, and God is capable of saving and redeeming a people out of this wickedness. A remnant, if you will, can stand and be witnesses to His truth.
So “lost” might be accurate in a limited political sense, but not all of life is political. We are creatures beyond political ones.
Rush knows that, deep down, I think...Certainly we should.
One possible solution I have thought about is for the name of the institution to be changed to “Holy Matrimony”....I know that is not a “new” term, but the secular world can embrace “marriage” all they want, perhaps. We who follow Christ ought to take the vows seriously and recognize that Holy Matrimony is only between a man and woman.
By the way, I believe the church as a whole was blind to the slippery slope when easy divorces became available...it didn’t really take a stand for keeping couples together, and when marriage became easy to dissolve (”we just don’t love each other any more” nonsense) the churches of America should have been stronger in resisting this trend.
Not to mention next on the agenda, constitutional right to have more then one wife or husband...Like one of the SC Judges asked, “where does it end with constitutional rights? Polygamy? Brothers and sisters getting married? Opens the door to what is fair, equal and constitutional right. For many years, homosexuality was thought of as immoral. Fast forward, media, activists have won the battle to make it moral using the “hate” mode of operation. So- next, polygamists will want their rights too....
Screw you and your defeatism, gasbag.
He stopped mentioning the homo agenda 2 decades ago. I started listening to him when he was local in Sacramento and he was pretty good. After a few years he turned gasbag, and a while after that he stopped even mentioning the homo nazi agenda. Or a lot of other vital issues. He keeps it light, acceptable, and self serving.
Maybe if he had told the truth about the “gay” life and the homo nazi agenda more people would know the truth.
He’s a defeat, and he assisted the defeat.
Well that’s all true, but it has nothing to do with what Rush was talking about. He was merely observing that the battle has been lost.