Gay Marriage and Mrs. Murphy: Increasing demands for societal approval of homosexuality

“What was all that about,” former Hillary Clinton advisor Ann Lewis predicted would be the response of future generations towards current controversies over same-sex “marriage” (SSM) at a May 28 Washington, DC, panel. Unquestioned approval of homosexuality by Lewis and her fellow panelists does not bode well for religious freedom, the topic upon which they spoke at the Newseum’s presentation of “Gay Rights and Religious Freedom: Is Common Ground Possible?”

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.”

“Moral questions, not legal questions” thus took priority in Michaelson’s demand for “equality justice,” a term he preferred to “gay rights.” After “2,500 years of oppression” Michaelson also rejected the sentiment of being “gracious in victory” advocated by some amidst current gay movement societal successes. A “finally transgender inclusive” Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) will most likely not pass in the current Congress, for example, Michaelson bemoaned in discussing a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT)movement still not fully victorious.

“What was all that about,” former Hillary Clinton advisor Ann Lewis predicted would be the response of future generations...

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.

The one and only Bob Hope ... recognized this real fear (increased demand for societal APPROVAL of homosexuals) WAY BACK in the mid-70's .....

“I’ve just flown in from California, where they’ve made homosexuality legal. I thought I’d get out before they make it compulsory.”

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 ...

1955??

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: “I’ve just flown in from California, where they’ve made homosexuality legal. I thought I’d 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.

The same formular used by the homosexual activists is already being employed by those supporting polygamy and pedophilia. The supporters of incest and beastiality will also use the same strategies to push social acceptance of their perversions.

And before you say I'm crazy and beatiality will never, ever be socially acceptable... think of how many people would have said the exact same thing about homosexuality 40, 30 or even 20 years ago.

Biblical invocations, for example, had served to justify both racism and condemnation of homosexuality.

True.

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.

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.

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.

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.