Skip to comments.Gay Marriage and Mrs. Murphy: Increasing demands for societal approval of homosexuality
Posted on 06/11/2014 7:51:01 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Homosexuality is the “newest frontier of human rights” following the civil rights movement, Lewis asserted with an oft-invoked analogy largely shared by the panel. “Racial oppression and homophobia” intersections also occurred to homosexual author and activist Jay Michaelson, although he qualified that “sexual orientation is not like race” involvingthe greater horrors of slavery and segregation. Biblical invocations, for example, had served to justify both racism and condemnation of homosexuality. “We always go straight to race” in gay rights discussions, concurred homosexual scholar Jonathan Rauch, but race was an “extreme case” of injustice.Yet historic condemnation of homosexuality by numerous faiths risked “tarring religion with the brush of discrimination.”
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
equality justice = special rights, quotas and a preferences...
Yes, they will wonder why the current secularists turned their backs on God and celebrated sodomy.
We all know where this is going. The Overton Window has shifted so much and so fast that in the next few generations there will be no tolerate people who morally disapprove of homo behavior. Traditionalists will not be allowed in polite society as Segregationists are not tolerated today. The only question I have is when will there be the political muscle to do a Bob Jones University on Traditionalists churches by removing their tax exempt status.
Isn’t Ann Lewis Barney Franks’ sister? You wonder what was discussed around their dinner table when they were children.
They really hate folks like me. I’m as steadfast in my stand as if I was still in 1955. I’ve seen no evidence to change my position and plenty that solififies it.
NOTE: the above link is to the incomparable Mark Steyn's at article at NRO which got him banned by the Christian-phobic nancyboys running the site ...
p.s. I think they also objected to Mark's spot on visual depiction of the two sides of this societal/cultural war over sodomy, which was about to take place ...
Heck, even in 1985 or 1995, the idea that we would have homosexual marriage was unbelievable.
If you go back and check the roll call vote on the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, you would be surprised at how many otherwise liberal congressmen and senators voted for that law.
It’s amazing to think that, not too many years ago, the definition of marriage was the least controversial issue in America.
Of course, nowadays, marriage is controversial, per liberal criteria, because many refuse to give in on homosexual marriage.
RE: Bob Hope: Ive just flown in from California, where theyve made homosexuality legal. I thought Id get out before they make it compulsory.
Can anyone make the same joke today and not get his career killed?
No I don’t think we’re allowed to joke about homosexuality at all.
We have become so politically correct, that you are not allowed to tell any jokes about the LGBT peoples.
Though it is relevant that finding racism in the Bible requires misinterpreting it significantly, whereas NOT finding condemnation of homosexuality requires at least equal misinterpretation of the Bible.
Though I believe it is also fair to point out that the Bible's condemnation of homosexual practices is generally found as part of denunciations of sin in general and sexual sins of all varieties in particular.
IOW, I don't think it is entirely accurate to say that the Bible categorizes homosexual acts as uniquely sinful, or as greatly more sinful than other types of sexual sins.
I use 1955 to point out how solidified my postion is. The concept of same sex marriage is still as foreign to me as it was to people back then. And the more I know, the more solid my viewpoint becomes.
And the funny thing is that whenever I argue the issue with progressives I always run circles around them logically, which really, REALLY ticks them off, usually resulting in them embarrassing themselves.
equality justice = power to make other people bend to your whims at the point of a gun.
How will all those tolerance mongers in the future deal with children who intentionally weren’t allowed to have a mother or a father?
Little Suzy will be standing on the sidewalk of the elementary school, looking longingly at the faces of the mothers dropping off the other children.
And little Billy will grieve for a father he was denied because he sadly is being raised by two women.
Yes, she is.
There are two biological sexes, with perhaps an infinitesimally small number of biological hermaphrodites. All else is just tragic psychological fantasies that while one should have some compassion for the poor deluded souls that experience them, should not be coddled or encouraged. The government, however, will henceforth force everyone to not only recognize, but celebrate these fantasies.
What arguments do you use?
Not only can you not make that joke today, but the joke statement is close to becoming a reality.
Gay supremacy is more like it.
They are creeping into the culture. They still are moral degenerates.
In all of the natural world, sex is between a male and female with the possible result of procreation. It is why sex exists.
Homosexual sex is not sex because it is not between a male and female. It is similar to sex but is something else. I prefer the term “sexual perversion” but whatever you call it, it isn’t sex.
If there were no such thing as sex, there would be no such thing as marriage. And if parents did not have authority and responsibility over raising their progeny to adulthood, there would be no such thing as marriage.
And if the state had no interest in the quality of adults nurtured through childhood, the child would have no interest in marriage. It would be like being a baseball fan or fly fisherman.
And since homosexual “sex” is not sex, any coupling or joining of two or more people can be called “marriage”. And here is the final issue:
Once you dilute the meaning of a word enough, the word no longer has any meaning. What does “cold” mean? What does “safe” mean? Alone, the words have little meaning. The context gives them meaning. The same thing is happening to the word “marriage”. In some states, they’ve come up with something called a “covenent” marriage. It means, in essence, that it can’t be disolved through a “no-fault” divorce. You want out? You’re gonna have to show significant cause.
What we will now have is “Christian marriage”, “homosexual marriage”, “man-beast marriage”, “multiple partner marriage”, etc.
But what types of marriage will be allowed to adopt and raise children? And what will be the quality of the children raised by the various “married” groups?
The fall of western civilization is happening faster than I could ever have imagined. We will not survive Obama’s second term, and it’s not about Obama per-se. And by “we” I mean the civilized world, not just the US.
We are living in interesting times, and every year lately is exponentially more “interesting” than the year before.
Is that a Rolex Pajama Boy is wearing?
Gay Marriage and Mrs. Murphy: Increasing demands for societal approval of homosexuality
You can even point a gun at my head and I would still tell you to piss off. I will not approval of perverts taking over our society. Period. Deal with it.
Thanks, I like it.
What happens when the next baker to refuse a homo cake is muslim? It will never happen. The homos choose their prey carefully.
They take that turn the other cheek way to seriously. Seems to me Jesus had no trouble blowing up at the guys in the temple.
What happens when the next baker to refuse a homo cake is muslim? It will never happen.
...I believe that very thing did happen, somewhere in Canada, Toronto or Ottawa, except instead of being a baker, the Muslim was a barber who refused to cut female hair...the homosexual brought suit immediately...
...I think the barber won...
I remember that. Wonder how it would play out here.