Posted on 10/10/2014 10:29:10 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
Exclusive: Matt Barber warns, 'The courts are tossing around spiritual nitroglycerin'
It’s called Pandora’s Box.
And the Supreme Court just opened it.
Did you actually think the debate over “gay marriage” was about marriage? Have you really come to believe that this cultural kerfuffle has anything to do with “civil rights” or “equality”? Have you bought into the popular premise that this is a legitimate discussion on federalism – that it’s a reasonable disagreement over whether the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause requires that newfangled “gay marriage,” something rooted in same-sex sodomy, a deviant and disease-prone behavior our Constitution’s framers officially declared “the infamous crime against nature,” be made law of the land?
A lot of people have, so don’t feel bad. A lot of reasonable, well-meaning and even, at times, intelligent people have taken the bait.
But that’s all window dressing. It’s superficial. It’s collateral. It’s chaff, a diversion, a squirrel. Don’t chase it.
At its core, this increasingly heated fight over “gay marriage” is about two diametrically opposed and profoundly incompatible views of reality (or lack thereof). It’s the modern manifestation of a millennia-old clash between worldviews. This ugly cultural conflict is, in reality, neither legal nor political in nature, but, rather, is fundamentally a philosophical debate. Ultimately, it derives from, and is illustrative of, deep-seeded spiritual warfare. Quite simply, the clash over “gay marriage” is emblematic of the larger, and much older, clash between good and evil.
And it’s reaching critical mass.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
“You think the clear definition that a marriage is between one woman and one man is wrong?”
The state got its definition of marriage wrong for both banning interracial marriage and its acceptance of ‘gay marriage.’ The state doesn’t have a ‘clear definition of marriage’—it was always only up to what judges, pols, or the voting majority think about it any one time. That’s why it deviated on things like banning interracial marriage and now it’s acceptance of ‘gay marriage.’
“You think the ‘bans’ of interracial and homosexual marriage are similar?”
No, the states acceptance of ‘gay marriage’ is wrong, just like it was wrong to ban interracial marriage. Not sure how anyone can disagree with that.
Freegards
It is a slippery slope.
In 1967, Pope Paul VI wrote an encyclical that predicted what would happen when birth control got its foothold. He said it would end up like this, because when the true marriage bond is broken, it becomes essentially an opened Pandora’s box.
Humane Vitae
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanae_Vitae
Marriage is for a man and a woman - for the unitive aspect of their relationship and for the procreation of children.
Marriage cannot be duplicated between same sex, or man and child, or man and animal, because both the unitive and the procreative aspects necessarily include the work of God.
And, God cannot be a party to anything other than what He designed without repercussions taking place at some point.
Marriages take place as an oath. An oath that forces God to be a witness as in “joined together” in a religious or even a civil ceremony.
And it will only do one thing - bring curses upon the parties involved. Because God cannot be a witness to a lie.
> “The state got its definition of marriage wrong for both banning interracial marriage and its acceptance of ‘gay marriage.’”
You sound very confused.
States in the past never used a definition of marriage when refusing to recognize interracial marriage. They used now abolished segregation laws.
States defined and DOMA defined marriage as between one man and one woman. Most states, in fact 38 of them did not accept any definition for ‘gay marriage’.
So your statement above is not factual and not part of the conflict.
> “The state doesn’t have a ‘clear definition of marriage’—it was always only up to what judges, pols, or the voting majority think about it any one time.”
States and DOMA have a VERY CLEAR definition of marriage as mentioned above. I will repeat Marriage is defined in DOMA as:
“... the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife ...”
It was not up to the voting public as their amendments to their state constitutions were overruled by federal judges.
> “That’s why it deviated on things like banning interracial marriage and now it’s acceptance of ‘gay marriage.’”
Again state laws are clear that a marriage is between A man and A woman. Interracial marriages were stopped not because of marriage definitions but because of now abolished segregation laws.
Marriage statutes did not say interracial marriages were prohibited based on definition, marriage applications were denied based on segregation statutes. Big difference, had nothing to do with marriage definition and important because the homo lobby states that homosexual marriage equates to interracial marriage in its constitutionality.
‘Gay’ marriage or more correctly homosexual marriage is not ‘accepted’ by definition but by rulings of federal courts based on 5th and 14th Amendment considerations, which incidentally are in error of the intentions of those amendments and which is why Senator Cruz will propose an amendment to the US Constitution to prevent such errors.
This poll is from last year.
It seems that the support for first trimester abortions is still pretty high.
After the first trimester it declines pretty sharply.
“In the broadest sense, Americans’ reaction to Roe v. Wade has been consistent for the past few decades. A majority have always opposed overturning the decision, while roughly a third favor doing so. However, in 2006, as the percentage of Americans with no opinion about the status of Roe v. Wade increased, the percentage opposed to overturning it dropped below 60%, and has since remained in that lower range. This year, with a record-high 18% unsure, the percentage wanting it overturned fell below 30% for only the third time since 1989.”
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160058/majority-americans-support-roe-wade-decision.aspx
As you can tell...polls are whatever
I agree kids are more libtard as a rule
I perused your posting history and while im harder on culture you acquit well in the face of the fury
Your bravery in facing the C.O.P. folks over the arctic brawl entertained me..lol
They eviscerated me over questioning her McCain endorsement
Even though I paid 1500 for my wife and Ito see her in 2009 in Nashville at private small function
Something none of them did....there were two other posters there....no one is above critique....not even Magnus or Churchill
“I perused your posting history and while im harder on culture you acquit well in the face of the fury
Your bravery in facing the C.O.P. folks over the arctic brawl entertained me..lol
no one is above critique....not even Magnus or Churchill”
Thanks
I didn’t check your posting history but I did look at your bio page. Nice family.
I don’t take any of this personally or even very seriously.
I’ve noticed that when it starts to make my blood pressure spike just turning all of it off and doing something else more in the immediate real world keeps everything in scale.
That thread about the Palin family was just me pointing out that nobody’s a perfect anything.
I was probably a little more snarky than I should have been.
I realize that all politics and especially online politics contains a particle of team sport/hero worship.
Sometimes a lot of particles.
I agree. You can’t use a Biblically labeled argument against people who don’t follow the Bible. A really strong case against gay “marriage” can be made in presenting the damage that the children raised in the unions suffer. The solid evidence is out there, but it is intentionally buried and requires intense internet searching.
Of course the chief problem is that the ones who are in favor of genderless legal unions are blinded by the glitz and sparkle that the gay mafia have decorated the issue with so they are mostly shutdown to other viewpoints. If they are capable of listening at all, they will only hear secular evidence.
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.