Skip to comments.Fox’s Shep Smith on Gay Marriage: Republicans On ‘Wrong Side Of History’(video)
Posted on 05/09/2012 4:36:24 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
What Im most curious about is whether its your belief that in this time of rising debts and medical issues and all the rest if Republicans would go out on the limb and try to make this a campaign issue while sitting very firmly, without much question, on the wrong side of history on it.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Didn’t Shep have AIDS related health problems recently?
I thought I read that somewhere a couple of months ago..
Yeah, I’m really surprised that he and his boyfriend haven’t hop-scotched down to the courthouse and tied the knot. Or maybe he’s in a snit because Sam Champion is spoken for, and he had to settle for someone else.
I am sure that Lot’s wife, looking back with longing to Sodom, proudly and confidently proclaimed that Abraham and those old fashioned followers of the Lord were also “on the wrong side of history” with their narrow minded, judgemental views about homosexual acts. And we know how well that line worked out for her, don’t we.
Seems like shephard is getting a little testy about the subject.
The odd time this subject comes up with friends, the only things I say are:
1) think of what these people do and don’t try and tell me that this is normal.
2) it’s an exit, not an entrance.
3) I’m with God - it’s an abomination. Your argument is with Him, not me.
I’m accustomed to being “on the wrong side of history”.It certainly hasn’t caused me any sleepless nights.
Several cultures adopted very permissive attitudes towards open homosexuality. They did not last very long. I think this embrace of homosexuality was more symptomatic than a cause of instability, but no culture took that path and prospered for very long.
They need to dump that faggot.
Nero thought he was on the right side of history, too, Shep.
On the perversion of the family issue, how to formulate a clear message that defends monogamous heterosexual marriage will be a challenge. We have a huge electorate who does not know the implications of normalizing homosexual relationships. You see them clapping on shows that promote homosexuality and same sex marriage. Most American have no clue what the battle is about. The media indoctrination for same sex marriage has been irresponsible and non-stop. How we stop the propaganda campaign will be a challenge.
Basically, same-sex marriage violates the natural parent-child bond in every family, and the right of the family to protection by society and the state. It will discard the fundamental understanding that the family based upon the heterosexual marriage is very foundation of society. Same sex-marriage will de-naturalize the family by rendering familial relationships, in their entirety, as expressions of law. That understanding that the family is a small society (a sovereign state) with unique rights and responsibilities independent of the state will become mere policy relationships, defined and imposed by the state. The family, this society, founded more immediately in nature (the proles--procreation or fruitfulness), will no longer have the distinction of sexual difference, with its generative power. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society. With a change in the definition of marriage the family will have no direct connection to nature. This leaves the parent-child relation open to increasing intervention by the state. And with the possibility of the state being influenced by foreign forces, the definition of the family could be expanded to include such barbarous practices as sex with children and polygamy.
With the definition of marriage redefined, the state with its newfound power, will undermine further the sovereign nature of the family, and the sphere of the church or religious community as wellthe two spheres where divine and human rights independent of the state are located. This will come as an all out assault on heterosexism, or anything that seems to privilege the male-female binary or the nuclear family. It will enable the state to indoctrinate our children and deprive us of the power to intervene. We must understand the serious nature of this fight. There will be no peace is to be had by capitulation.
The big question is can the fight be fought in the midst of a presidential campaign? Could it backfire and be used against our candidate? Remember, we are dealing with an indoctrinated public who is ignorant of the real issue and its consequences. Can smart minds formulate the argument that will not be given the homophobia label? This fight must be be vigorously taken up by Christians who can boldly declare that marriage is a giftsomething we receive with creation, not something we inventand that only what is capable of being a marriage act is natural sex. I believe that this issue can be fought on the moral level as it presents itself to the sovereignty of the family. Then, it ceases to be a Republican or a Democratic cause, and not be spun as a stigma against our presidential candidate. It should be made a human rights issue
I would rather be on the wrong side of history than on the wrong side of God.
The idea that same sex marriage will be accepted in an historic perspective is as silly as one of the experiments that Dean Swift described in Gulliver's voyage to Laputa & trip to the Academy there. Marriage, in the historic sense, no less than in the philosophic, has always been the way Mankind, or any of its subsets, seeks to sanctify its procreational procedures. It reflects the reality (Shep Smith, notwithstanding), that all civilization--and every community, tribe, nation & race--is a multi-generational ongoing work in progress. Marriage has never been considered valid, if it could not be consummated by a procreational act--in most societies subject to annulment.
The burlesque of the concept of marriage, of course, goes 'hand-in-glove' with all the other ways that multi-generational purpose is being lost in America & Europe. There is a considerable parallel between the attack on marriage--and the family as a coninuing enterprise--and the willingness of politicians to spend the wealth--often not yet even earned--of future generations, to buy the support of the totally self-centered, who want to live for the moment.
Unfortunately, Shep Smith will not be around to see what realistic historians actually have to say about the farce that he seems to applaud.