PDA

View Full Version : Why we are losing the 'gay marriage' battle


Abdul Alhazred
24th February 2004, 09:11 AM
Editorial from a 'religious right' point of view:

Why we are losing the 'gay marriage' battle (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37270)

Please click the link before commenting.


While everyone would like to claim that the
homosexual "marriage" battle has energized
the Christian majority in America, nothing
could be further from the truth. The recent
events in San Francisco and Massachusetts are
the ultimate testimony to our lack of energy
and desire to please God. We are currently
losing this battle because we deserve to lose
this battle.

There are several reasons why we will not win
this battle until we change our wicked ways.
First, our side fails to realize that same-sex
couples are attempting to hijack nothing more
than a sinking ship. Secondly, Christians lack
the unity to defeat those who would redefine
marriage. Thirdly, and perhaps most
importantly, the religious leaders of America
are failing to take any action that could
possibly stave off an inevitable defeat. Finally,
our lack of faith in the Creator of marriage and
marriage itself couldn't be any more obvious.
Unless there is a fundamental turnaround in
our faith as a nation, we cannot expect or
deserve to achieve victory in the preservation
of marriage.


Chuckle. :D

toddjh
24th February 2004, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
Editorial from a 'religious right' point of view:

Why we are losing the 'gay marriage' battle (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37270)

Please click the link before commenting.

Chuckle. :D

Geez. That's sad.

As for "redefining marriage," I hope it's fair to assume that he prefers the Biblical definition which allows multiple wives? I mean, he is a Christian, isn't he?

Jeremy

Marquis de Carabas
24th February 2004, 09:27 AM
One can only surmise that it is the very fact that marriage has been mostly destroyed that the "gay" activists want it so bad. Hijacking what is left of marriage is the only way to ensure that it will be completely destroyed forevermore.
Homosexuals have been lying in wait for thousands of years, hoping the oppotunity would come to finally destroy marraige. It's good to know they will finally succeed.

ceo_esq
24th February 2004, 09:34 AM
If nothing else, this fellow ought to be congratulated for zeroing in on an insight that seems to elude most religious-righters:First, our side fails to realize that same-sex
couples are attempting to hijack nothing more
than a sinking ship.I object to the "hijacking" rhetoric, but his basic point is sound. Indeed, the religious hypocrisy that he is attacking here has also been repeatedly critiqued by us in this forum (notably in the "sanctity of marriage" discussions).

Tony
24th February 2004, 09:39 AM
I hope everything he says is right. I hope they are losing the battle of gay marriage.

Monketey Ghost
24th February 2004, 10:07 AM
Why does this have to be a battle? It's just people expressing love for one another, just the way Jesus taught.

If the Constitution is amended to exclude certain rights from certain groups, I will consider moving far away very strongly; the country is becoming something other than the haven for the oppressed that made it great.

Abdul Alhazred
24th February 2004, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by No Answers
Why does this have to be a battle? It's just people expressing love for one another, just the way Jesus taught.


Luv, luv, luv. :p

Izzat the same loving Jesus who called a Greek woman an infidel dog, until she grovelled? (Mark 7:26)

Gay people would be better off not trying to play Christian. There's no good reason for it.

Monketey Ghost
24th February 2004, 10:32 AM
Gay folks can be Christian, it's perfectly compatible. Just not the right-wing brand of Christianity.

I looked that verse up in three different bibles... huh? What version are you using? (Oh my, I sound like a holy roller)

...anyways, what's the constitutional standard... two-thirds of the states have to ratify an amendment? I don't see that happening, but I wonder... if they can successfully equate gay marriage with awful things happening to "normal" people's marriages, maybe.

jj
24th February 2004, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by No Answers
Gay folks can be Christian, it's perfectly compatible. Just not the right-wing brand of Christianity.

I looked that verse up in three different bibles... huh? What version are you using? (Oh my, I sound like a holy roller)

...anyways, what's the constitutional standard... two-thirds of the states have to ratify an amendment? I don't see that happening, but I wonder... if they can successfully equate gay marriage with awful things happening to "normal" people's marriages, maybe.

Of course the awful things happening to many people's marriages have nothing to do with religion either, and everything to do with changing economic and social situations where the people grew up and where they live. They also have to do with the appalling lack of committment that seems to be taught by both the left and the right nowadays, the left arguing that people should be free, and the right that we should smite anyone who isn't just like us.

Even though I'm not the least bit a believer, what ever DID happen to the teachings of "Christ", which were those of tolerance and acceptance, anyhow?

Did the guy who had the ergot fit on the road to Damascus mess it all up that badly? If so, I'd have to say that there wasn't much divine in the first place.

Ipecac
24th February 2004, 10:57 AM
Marriage needs to be restored to what it has always been and what it was intended to be a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman that cannot be thrown asunder by anything, save the cause of adultery.

This is just pathetic. Don't love your spouse? Too bad. Spouse beats you? Too bad. Spouse just sits around, not bathing, not working, contributing nothing? Too bad.

Why is it that President Bush is only taking a "serious look" at what is going on in San Francisco? Bush ought to be sending in the National Guard to San Francisco to immediately restore the order of law and the thousands of years of history underlying the most valued institution of marriage.

And this is just sick.

Abdul Alhazred
24th February 2004, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by No Answers
Gay folks can be Christian, it's perfectly compatible. Just not the right-wing brand of Christianity.

I'm about to get into who is a Real Christian<sup>TM</sup>. Go ahead be a gay Christian.

I'm saying you shouldn't be a Christian.

Being religon-free is more than just not being a fundy.


I looked that verse up in three different bibles... huh? What version are you using? (Oh my, I sound like a holy roller)

King James, but it hardly matters. I interpret thus:

"Heal my child"

"No I'm for Jews, not dogs like you"

"OK Lord, I'm a dog"

"I like your attitude, I'll heal your child"


As for the original topic, which is marriage for any adult couple who wants it, I'm all for it (just in case this wasn't clear).

But let's not mess with the religious trappings. It serves us nothing.

Regardless of that the 'religious right' says, 'normal' marriage, while not universal, did not originate in the Bible or in any one culture. The ancient Romans, Greeks, Egyptian, Chinese, Hindus, etc etc, had it too.

And gay people getting married really is something new. And it will happen in the USA regardless of who is president.

A constitutional amendment? Mere posturing.

It takes 2/3 of a joint session of congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures. No way that will happen in this case.

Or if it does, we've got worse problems than no gay marriage.

Hutch
24th February 2004, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


A constitutional amendment? Mere posturing.

It takes 2/3 of a joint session of congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures. No way that will happen in this case.


I wish I could be as confident as you are, Abdul A., but this being an election year and the Religious Right ready to mobilize a large army of voters, it just might sneak through Congress. And most state legislators are even more likely than Congress to cave into political pressure from the RR and vote their election interests and not their conscience (if they are in possession of one).

Unlike the Flag Amendment, which most folks could see though after a bit, I am not fully confident of the BS-detectors of my fellow citizens as you are.

Hope you're right, however.

Abdul Alhazred
24th February 2004, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by Hutch
I wish I could be as confident as you are, Abdul A., but this being an election year and the Religious Right ready to mobilize a large army of voters, it just might sneak through Congress. And most state legislators are even more likely than Congress to cave into political pressure from the RR and vote their election interests and not their conscience (if they are in possession of one).


I don't say that it can never happen.

But right now the Republicans have a very slim majority and several Republicans will reject the amendment on "states' rights" grounds.

Not even 50% will send it to the states, let alone 2/3.

And if they do, how many whole states are gay-unfriendly? Yes there are plenty, but it only takes 12 states (25%) to block it.

Between gay-friendly states and states who will block it for "states' rights" grounds (that includes Texas), I'm not worried for now.

Republicans talk a good line on small government, though W is a big government guy for sure. But some Republicans in congress really believe it.

Bush, or more to the point gay-unfriendly congressmen (only congressmen can officially introduce a constitutional amendment), will cynically posture that they tried.

But gay marriage will happen. It's called separation of powers and an independant judiciary.

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. The good old USA for me (without endorsing particular politicians).

toddjh
24th February 2004, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by Hutch
And most state legislators are even more likely than Congress to cave into political pressure from the RR and vote their election interests and not their conscience (if they are in possession of one).

I think the states are where we can count on the most support. Now, my knowledge of amendment procedure is iffy, but it's my impression that there is no definite timeline for when or even if your state would decide whether or not to ratify it -- it's up to the state legislatures to vote on it or propose a convention if they want, and hence the long (seven-year?) time limit set by most proposed amendments.

Since there's no ultimatum, no particular moment of truth, that gives politicians a lot more leeway. They can lie low without looking bad to their constituencies. Most politicians seem to have hopped on the "gay marriage is bad" bandwagon out of pragmatism, but I seriously doubt most of them really feel that strongly about it, especially to the point of amending the Constitution. So my prediction is that, in some states, the vote or convention will never even be convened. In the states where there's a lot of pressure to approve it, they'll stall, saying that they need time to consider all the legal issues, and schedule the vote far enough into the future that it will no longer be a hot topic, and they can get away with voting against it.

It's pretty scary, but it's not quite as bad as it seems. :)

This post has been edited for content and formatted to fit your screen.

Jeremy

charley_bigtime
24th February 2004, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred

I[B]
King James, but it hardly matters. I interpret thus:

"Heal my child"

"No I'm for Jews, not dogs like you"

"OK Lord, I'm a dog"

"I like your attitude, I'll heal your child"

here. (http://www.allstarz.org/bible/mark7_kjv.htm)

"26 The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast [it] unto the dogs.28 And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs.29 And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.30 And when she was come to her house, she found the devil gone out, and her daughter laid upon the bed."

I think your powers of interpretation are slightly under par on this particular day.

zultr
24th February 2004, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


Between gay-friendly states and states who will block it for "states' rights" grounds (that includes Texas), I'm not worried for now.

In principle, what you say makes sense, but you're forgetting the utter hypocrisy of policitians. Conservatives are for free market capitalism - until it means cutting the gravy train for coprorations. Liberals are for freedom of speech - until you say something politically incorrect (as defined by them). Texas will be in favor of states' rights - until a state tries something it doesn't like. Your mistake here might be to think with logical consistency, something that rarely happens in American politics.

Ian Perez
24th February 2004, 07:34 PM
Interesting. The guy has some good ideas- they should look withing themselves and what they have done to marriage. The rest is crap, though. Points for mentioning something that's escaped most of the right, though.

Tony
24th February 2004, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by zultr


In principle, what you say makes sense, but you're forgetting the utter hypocrisy of policitians. Conservatives are for free market capitalism - until it means cutting the gravy train for coprorations. Liberals are for freedom of speech - until you say something politically incorrect (as defined by them). Texas will be in favor of states' rights - until a state tries something it doesn't like. Your mistake here might be to think with logical consistency, something that rarely happens in American politics.

Give that guy a cigar!!

Abdul Alhazred
24th February 2004, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by zultr


In principle, what you say makes sense, but you're forgetting the utter hypocrisy of policitians. Conservatives are for free market capitalism - until it means cutting the gravy train for coprorations. Liberals are for freedom of speech - until you say something politically incorrect (as defined by them). Texas will be in favor of states' rights - until a state tries something it doesn't like. Your mistake here might be to think with logical consistency, something that rarely happens in American politics.

I am gay and for free market capitalism. I also know that all politicians are stinkers.

I am also unemployed right now.

Kerry says the issue is jobs.
What exactly jobs will Kerry have for me?

Are we talking?

Luke T.
24th February 2004, 10:41 PM
My, how times have changed.

I do not question that the great austerity of manners that is observable in the United States arises, in the first instance, from religious faith. Religion is often unable to restrain man from the numberless temptations which chance offers; nor can it check that passion for gain which everything contributes to arouse; but its influence over the mind of woman is supreme, and women are the protectors of morals. There is certainly no country in the world where the tie of marriage is more respected than in America or where conjugal happiness is more highly or worthily appreciated, In Europe almost all the disturbances of society arise from the irregularities of domestic life. To despise the natural bonds and legitimate pleasures of home is to contract a taste for excesses, a restlessness of heart, and fluctuating desires. Agitated by the tumultuous passions that frequently disturb his dwelling, the European is galled by the obedience which the legislative powers of the state exact. But when the American retires from the turmoil of public life to the bosom of his family, he finds in it the image of order and of peace. There his pleasures are simple and natural, his joys are innocent and calm; and as he finds that an orderly life is the surest path to happiness, he accustoms himself easily to moderate his opinions as well as his tastes. While the European endeavors to forget his domestic troubles by agitating society, the American derives from his own home that love of order which he afterwards carries with him into public affairs.

Alexis de Tocqueville in 1832.

dsm
24th February 2004, 11:24 PM
Originally posted by toddjh
Geez. That's sad.

As for "redefining marriage," I hope it's fair to assume that he prefers the Biblical definition which allows multiple wives? I mean, he is a Christian, isn't he?


Is that in the Old or New Testament? I mean, if it's the Old Testament, then maybe it's more of a Jewish thing...?

:confused:

shuize
24th February 2004, 11:52 PM
Give the gays state sanctioned marriage and let them experience the joys of divorce court like the rest of us. Half of them will wind up wishing they never asked for it in the first place.