Skip to comments.The Gay marriage fight now becomes a religious liberty fight
Posted on 06/30/2013 7:32:06 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
click here to read article
Did you look at the link I provided?
These were both a current and former baptist saying this, not me.
That's how the left's hypocrisy loses votes from the mushy middle.
Just in case anyone still thinks that the reason homosexual activisists and other assorted leftists who push same sex marriage are doing so for reasons of “family togetherness”, I’m going to post the quotes I put together revealing in their own words, just why they want homosexual “marriage”. Unfortunately I was not savvy enough to have dates or sources but they’re all accurate quotes. Anyone feel free to copy and spread around.
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.]
Obummer’s former White House aid and “body man” Reggie Love, who accompanied him on vacation in Palm Beach (without Michelle and kids), now tweets from South Africa -— where Obozo just happens to be currently. The perverse sodomy fest continues:
Yes I did, my comment still stand. There are baptists and then there are Baptists. Heck the westboro cult has the nerve to call themselves Baptists. Ha.
Consider that the survival of much of the animal kingdom depends on the preponderance of heterosexuality.
Dn't need n Weatherman t see which waybama's wind
"Behind the Violence, Says Jane Alpert, Was Sex"
--November 09, 1981--
"The leaders of the Weather Underground, she believes, followed a similar pattern of constantly shifting sexual alliances..."
"He [Bill Ayers] also writes about the Weathermen's sexual experimentation as they tried to 'smash monogamy.' The Weathermen were 'an army of lovers,' he says, and describes having had different sexual partners, including his best male friend."
Source: New York Times, September 11, 2001: "No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives; In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen"
"...the Weathermen, when not engaged in group sex, committed such revolutionary acts as parading with a Viet Cong flag through a local park on Independence Day and spray-painting the walls of a high school with the slogans, "Off the Pigs," "Viet Cong Will Win," and "F#$k U.S. Imperialism."..."
"What happens next bears watching closely, as does the response of the president, ex-Speaker Pelosi, and others on the left. Encouraged by leftists in the Democratic Party and funded by left-leaning nonprofit organizations and celebrity contributors, Occupy Wall Street may in time morph into something resembling the radical factions of the late 1960s and 1970s."
"According to my opinion, and the opinions of many defectors of my caliber, only about 15% of time, money, and manpower is spent on espionage as such. The other 85% is a slow process which we call either ideological subversion, active measures, or psychological warfare. What it basically means is: to change the perception of reality of every American that despite of the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.It's a great brainwashing process which goes very slow and is divided into four basic stages.The first stage being "demoralization".It takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years required to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy exposed to the ideology of [their] enemy. In other words, Marxism-Leninism ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least 3 generation of American students without being challenged or counterbalanced by the basic values of Americanism; American patriotism. "--KGB Defector Yuri Bezmenov--Soviet Subversion of the Free Press (Ideological subversion, Destabilization, CRISIS - and the KGB)
No reference to sodomy in the 1st Amendment.
This article is correct, but that’s what it has always been. At the same time that we argue the Right to Conscience we also need to emphasize:
1. The same sex lifestyle is physically and mentally unhealthy.
2. It is not genetically deterministic, that is once homosexual is not always homosexual.
3. It has major environmental drivers - molestation - as well as an epigenetic effect caused by hormonal changes in the womb. This means that it is reversible.
4. Despite their apparent functioning, homosexuals, like those suffering from other mental illnesses like manic-depression, are suffering from a treatable disease.
No they don't.
I'm Catholic and two of my kids are married to noncatholics.
Only for the minority who are grasping for the last strawm which will be removed by the worldlings owned and directed by Satan. And that has now come about through those religionists who have so fully and strongly upheld the Democrat Party through which these laws and court decisions have been put in place.
Now they have lost control and are whining.
Yes someone else had said the same. Seems the Catholic Church has relaxed a lot of their rules, this is just another. May be a Church to Church thing as well, I don’t know.
the STATE is now moving in to tell you what to believe and what to espouse. Welcome to 1984.
Just what "rules" or, better yet what dogma, has the Catholic Church relaxed?
Whoa there, I am not trying to attack the Catholic Church in any way! It has simply been a good many years since I had any occasion to go to one, and when I did, things seem to be a lot more strict. That is all I am saying. I have nothing against the church whatsoever. There was a time you had to convert if you wanted to marry a Catholic person. There was a time when some didn’t recognize divorce and would not perform second marriages. Again, not criticizing, just noting.
Just asked a question, and never inferred anything about “attacking the Catholic Church...” Insofar as the practices you mentioned, some are correct and others not. Example, the Church still does not allow remarried Catholics to partake in Holy Communion and those who marry non-Catholics must agree to raise children in the faith. The real issue, however, is not in practices which may change with interpretation or with promulgations, but in matters of doctrine and dogma. Those never change and cannot. Thanks for the exchange.
Thanks back, I am always willing to learn more, as it interests me, not being a Catholic myself. Glad to hear the doctrine and dogma cannot change!