Keith, in so many ways you are intelligent and fair, yet you just don't seem to "get" it about the word marriage. I don't understand how you can feel so possessive and exclusionary about it.
Overlook the haphazard disconnections and tangents. I'm in a hurry to get to work and didn't want to let this pass without giving my two cents worth.
Second, the push by those militant Gays who are attempting to redefine the word "Marriage" has nothing to do with equal rights or with attempting to have the same benefits and privileges that married couples do.
It has everything to do with equal rights, same benefits and privileges as people claiming to be religious for a day people. Why should a certain select group be segregated to the back of the bus or the end of the line to a window that is closed? If Domestic Partnership or Civil Union were truly equal to marriage, why does this argument continue?
It is an extreme anti-American movement that is intent on pushing a Marxist agenda down the American public's throat, and in the same vein, this Anti-American movement is attempting to further secularize the United States.
secular adj. Worldly rather than spiritual. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body.
If marriage is "religious," why is there a Justice of the Peace for certain non-religious people marrying?
Every right? Remember the California couple who went on a Caribbean cruise? They brought all documentation with them. One parent died in a Miami hospital without the care and comfort of her spouse and children. They were denied visitation "equal rights" and told "You're in Florida now." That sure was "Christian" compassion. I don't have a link to it, but you can "check it out."
I think there were similar sentiments when inter-racial marriage was illegal. Spain is a Roman Catholic nation. So is the one in Central or South America that recently passed gay marriage laws. Canada is homogeneous. Those nations, nor the few others who now recognize same gender marriage, has gone belly-up. Same gender marriage in America will be a choice, not an obligation. No one is going to marry a dalmatian, unless it's a real Dalmatian.
Overlook the haphazard disconnections and tangents. I'm in a hurry to get to work and didn't want to let this pass without giving my two cents worth.
Second, the push by those militant Gays who are attempting to redefine the word "Marriage" has nothing to do with equal rights or with attempting to have the same benefits and privileges that married couples do.
It has everything to do with equal rights, same benefits and privileges as people claiming to be religious for a day people. Why should a certain select group be segregated to the back of the bus or the end of the line to a window that is closed? If Domestic Partnership or Civil Union were truly equal to marriage, why does this argument continue?
It is an extreme anti-American movement that is intent on pushing a Marxist agenda down the American public's throat, and in the same vein, this Anti-American movement is attempting to further secularize the United States.
secular adj. Worldly rather than spiritual. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body.
If marriage is "religious," why is there a Justice of the Peace for certain non-religious people marrying?
By example, the push by secularists is not about equal rights. When the majority of Californians voted to amend the California Constitution to state that marriage is between a man and a woman, California had an existing "domestic partner" law, which granted every right to a homosexual couple, that a man and a woman joined in matrimony has. Check it out:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5
Every right? Remember the California couple who went on a Caribbean cruise? They brought all documentation with them. One parent died in a Miami hospital without the care and comfort of her spouse and children. They were denied visitation "equal rights" and told "You're in Florida now." That sure was "Christian" compassion. I don't have a link to it, but you can "check it out."
this issue doesn't have anything to do with equal rights. It has to do with those far left extremists who are pushing a secularist agenda, and those who want to destroy the very tenets that made our Nation great. They would love to rewrite history, taking away our Christian heritage, and it frustrates them to no end, because the majority of Americans, although not objectionable to all Americans being treated with dignity and guaranteed equal rights, they get pissed when their true intent is exposed!
I think there were similar sentiments when inter-racial marriage was illegal. Spain is a Roman Catholic nation. So is the one in Central or South America that recently passed gay marriage laws. Canada is homogeneous. Those nations, nor the few others who now recognize same gender marriage, has gone belly-up. Same gender marriage in America will be a choice, not an obligation. No one is going to marry a dalmatian, unless it's a real Dalmatian.
With purposeful , extensive, methodical propaganda, planning, massive amounts of funding by the likes of George Soros, Hollywood elitists and others, and with controlled, extensive media manipulation, it is my opinion that many Americans have been intentionally misled and mislead. There has been a concerted effort by a select hard core group of socialists and secularists, who want to destroy the traditional values of this Nation, the very core values that made this Nation great.
Tradition is something individual that applies to some people. Not every single person subscribes to Christmas dinner, Chanukah, Winter Solstice, or Boxing Day. One tradition does not fit all.
By example, there is no other definition of and for marriage, other than the term's religious connotation.
Metals can be married. Who officiates over a bronze transformation? Must there be witnesses? Is a government license required?
The premise that there is some kind of "civil definition" of marriage is incorrect. Marriage is in total, an ecclesiastical function; marriage always has been and continues to be. If one studies the history of marriage in this Nation, the several States got involved in the contract of "Marriage", only because of the conflict of varying religious tenets, and in part, to regulate miscegenation back in the early to mid nineteenth century. As stated, marriage is now, and has always been between a man and a woman, and this is at the very core of traditional values in western civilization. The definition of marriage extends throughout recorded history of western civilization.
East or west, winds and the sands of time change. It's time to move into this millennium.
The term, "same sex marriage" is an oxymoron, there can be no such thing, without literally changing the definition of marriage. That is the goal of these socialists and secularists; e.g.; to redefine the definition of marriage.
Well then, literally change the definition. Or, don't. Whatever makes you happy. Different words mean different things to different people. The sun still sets in the west, no matter what. Sortee means mission. Collateral damage means dead people... accidental, but still dead.
The goal of many people is equality. If you want to define marriage as between a man and woman, go ahead and use it to define your own religious beliefs. Most of the world will know what you mean. When Tommy and Bruce get married, (Are they already? They argue enough.) trust me, the world will know exactly what they mean. A bris is defined as circumcision. Circumcision isn't defined as a bris. There are synonyms for most words... including marriage... i.e., joining metals together.
Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia authored and shoved the Defense of Marriage Act. He was married three times by the time he was fifty! That's a lot of lies and lip service to have legalized sex. Why not just shack up first before the wedding? Did he really need a dozen toaster ovens?
This would be the equivalent of changing the definition of "Murder", or "giraffe"; or any other noun, adjective or adverb.
Didn't Bush 43 say something when he was accused of trying to give amnesty to illegals. I think his reply was "Call it anything you want. Call it a banana."
Despite the concept that many individuals and entities are trying to sell the American public, (including Tommy For News) most of which are from socialist-elitist movements here in the United States, and in this particular case, e.g.; the push for "gay marriage"; it is the militant gay movements within the United States, that has, and attempts to portray any individual that is opposed to gay marriage as somehow being bigoted, and equivalent to being racist, comparing themselves to the black community and the black leadership that pushed for racial equality who were treated unjustly during the mid to late 20th century.
Gay people have been treated unjustly. You've never been in a peaceful bar when the cops barge in shouting "You, you and you. You're under arrest." One of my friends was literally shot when he left a gay bar. Larry Craig and Mark Foley might say they were being treated "unfairly."
Leonard Matlovich understood justice and discrimination... "When I was in the military, they gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one."
It is not discriminatory for Americans to be opposed to, and rejecting same sex marriages as being a part of normal, mainstream behavior.
Being gay is as normal as being left-handed. Being deprived of public acknowledgment of love and commitment is bigoted, narrow-minded, and "unChristian." It was also a tradition in religion to damn left-handedness! Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
There is no other definition of and for marriage, other than the term's religious connotation.
Then the government needs to get out of the religion arena. Do you have to have a license for bar mitzva or baptism? Why marriage? If Civil Union is good enough for gay men and women, then it should be good enough for you. Then you can scurry off to the minister, rabbi, shaman, priest, or whatever before "amateur night."
The premise that there is some kind of "civil definition" of marriage is incorrect. Marriage is in total, an ecclesiastical function; marriage always has been and continues to be."
If you want it to be ecclesiastical for you, then go for it. No one is taking anything away from you.
Is there any gay marriage, civil union, partnership, holy matrimony, or other euphemism that has broken up a religious vow of "Until death do us part?" Whom anyone marries is up to those two individuals. It isn't up to you or anyone else to approve. All Americans deserve equal rights and protections.
Gay people have just as much right to take the first plunge into applying for a divorce. There is little sacred about it.
Mustang
Tradition is something individual that applies to some people. Not every single person subscribes to Christmas dinner, Chanukah, Winter Solstice, or Boxing Day. One tradition does not fit all.
By example, there is no other definition of and for marriage, other than the term's religious connotation.
Metals can be married. Who officiates over a bronze transformation? Must there be witnesses? Is a government license required?
The premise that there is some kind of "civil definition" of marriage is incorrect. Marriage is in total, an ecclesiastical function; marriage always has been and continues to be. If one studies the history of marriage in this Nation, the several States got involved in the contract of "Marriage", only because of the conflict of varying religious tenets, and in part, to regulate miscegenation back in the early to mid nineteenth century. As stated, marriage is now, and has always been between a man and a woman, and this is at the very core of traditional values in western civilization. The definition of marriage extends throughout recorded history of western civilization.
East or west, winds and the sands of time change. It's time to move into this millennium.
The term, "same sex marriage" is an oxymoron, there can be no such thing, without literally changing the definition of marriage. That is the goal of these socialists and secularists; e.g.; to redefine the definition of marriage.
Well then, literally change the definition. Or, don't. Whatever makes you happy. Different words mean different things to different people. The sun still sets in the west, no matter what. Sortee means mission. Collateral damage means dead people... accidental, but still dead.
The goal of many people is equality. If you want to define marriage as between a man and woman, go ahead and use it to define your own religious beliefs. Most of the world will know what you mean. When Tommy and Bruce get married, (Are they already? They argue enough.) trust me, the world will know exactly what they mean. A bris is defined as circumcision. Circumcision isn't defined as a bris. There are synonyms for most words... including marriage... i.e., joining metals together.
Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia authored and shoved the Defense of Marriage Act. He was married three times by the time he was fifty! That's a lot of lies and lip service to have legalized sex. Why not just shack up first before the wedding? Did he really need a dozen toaster ovens?
This would be the equivalent of changing the definition of "Murder", or "giraffe"; or any other noun, adjective or adverb.
Didn't Bush 43 say something when he was accused of trying to give amnesty to illegals. I think his reply was "Call it anything you want. Call it a banana."
Despite the concept that many individuals and entities are trying to sell the American public, (including Tommy For News) most of which are from socialist-elitist movements here in the United States, and in this particular case, e.g.; the push for "gay marriage"; it is the militant gay movements within the United States, that has, and attempts to portray any individual that is opposed to gay marriage as somehow being bigoted, and equivalent to being racist, comparing themselves to the black community and the black leadership that pushed for racial equality who were treated unjustly during the mid to late 20th century.
Gay people have been treated unjustly. You've never been in a peaceful bar when the cops barge in shouting "You, you and you. You're under arrest." One of my friends was literally shot when he left a gay bar. Larry Craig and Mark Foley might say they were being treated "unfairly."
Leonard Matlovich understood justice and discrimination... "When I was in the military, they gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one."
It is not discriminatory for Americans to be opposed to, and rejecting same sex marriages as being a part of normal, mainstream behavior.
Being gay is as normal as being left-handed. Being deprived of public acknowledgment of love and commitment is bigoted, narrow-minded, and "unChristian." It was also a tradition in religion to damn left-handedness! Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
There is no other definition of and for marriage, other than the term's religious connotation.
Then the government needs to get out of the religion arena. Do you have to have a license for bar mitzva or baptism? Why marriage? If Civil Union is good enough for gay men and women, then it should be good enough for you. Then you can scurry off to the minister, rabbi, shaman, priest, or whatever before "amateur night."
The premise that there is some kind of "civil definition" of marriage is incorrect. Marriage is in total, an ecclesiastical function; marriage always has been and continues to be."
If you want it to be ecclesiastical for you, then go for it. No one is taking anything away from you.
Is there any gay marriage, civil union, partnership, holy matrimony, or other euphemism that has broken up a religious vow of "Until death do us part?" Whom anyone marries is up to those two individuals. It isn't up to you or anyone else to approve. All Americans deserve equal rights and protections.
Gay people have just as much right to take the first plunge into applying for a divorce. There is little sacred about it.
Mustang
From: Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com>
To: politicalforum@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, September 20, 2010 8:30:17 AM
Subject: Re: A history of political gay-baiting.
We've been down this road before, but just a couple of points.
First, there has been no "Gay Baiting" by anyone that I am aware of from the Republican Party.
Second, the push by those militant Gays who are attempting to redefine the word "Marriage" has nothing to do with equal rights or with attempting to have the same benefits and privileges that married couples do. It is an extreme anti-American movement that is intent on pushing a Marxist agenda down the American public's throat, and in the same vein, this Anti-American movement is attempting to further secularize the United States.
By example, the push by secularists is not about equal rights. When the majority of Californians voted to amend the California Constitution to state that marriage is between a man and a woman, California had an existing "domestic partner" law, which granted every right to a homosexual couple, that a man and a woman joined in matrimony has. Check it out:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5
this issue doesn't have anything to do with equal rights. It has to do with those far left extremists who are pushing a secularist agenda, and those who want to destroy the very tenets that made our Nation great. They would love to rewrite history, taking away our Christian heritage, and it frustrates them to no end, because the majority of Americans, although not objectionable to all Americans being treated with dignity and guaranteed equal rights, they get pissed when their true intent is exposed!
With purposeful , extensive, methodical propaganda, planning, massive amounts of funding by the likes of George Soros, Hollywood elitists and others, and with controlled, extensive media manipulation, it is my opinion that many Americans have been intentionally misled and mislead. There has been a concerted effort by a select hard core group of socialists and secularists, who want to destroy the traditional values of this Nation, the very core values that made this Nation great.
By example, there is no other definition of and for marriage, other than the term's religious connotation. The premise that there is some kind of "civil definition" of marriage is incorrect. Marriage is in total, an ecclesiastical function; marriage always has been and continues to be. If one studies the history of marriage in this Nation, the several States got involved in the contract of "Marriage", only because of the conflict of varying religious tenets, and in part, to regulate miscegenation back in the early to mid nineteenth century. As stated, marriage is now, and has always been between a man and a woman, and this is at the very core of traditional values in western civilization. The definition of marriage extends throughout recorded history of western civilization.
The term, "same sex marriage" is an oxymoron, there can be no such thing, without literally changing the definition of marriage. That is the goal of these socialists and secularists; e.g.; to redefine the definition of marriage. This would be the equivalent of changing the definition of "Murder", or "giraffe"; or any other noun, adjective or adverb.
Despite the concept that many individuals and entities are trying to sell the American public, (including Tommy For News) most of which are from socialist-elitist movements here in the United States, and in this particular case, e.g.; the push for "gay marriage"; it is the militant gay movements within the United States, that has, and attempts to portray any individual that is opposed to gay marriage as somehow being bigoted, and equivalent to being racist, comparing themselves to the black community and the black leadership that pushed for racial equality who were treated unjustly during the mid to late 20th century.
It is not discriminatory for Americans to be opposed to, and rejecting same sex marriages as being a part of normal, mainstream behavior. There is no other definition of and for marriage, other than the term's religious connotation. The premise that there is some kind of "civil definition" of marriage is incorrect. Marriage is in total, an ecclesiastical function; marriage always has been and continues to be."
-- By example, there is no other definition of and for marriage, other than the term's religious connotation. The premise that there is some kind of "civil definition" of marriage is incorrect. Marriage is in total, an ecclesiastical function; marriage always has been and continues to be. If one studies the history of marriage in this Nation, the several States got involved in the contract of "Marriage", only because of the conflict of varying religious tenets, and in part, to regulate miscegenation back in the early to mid nineteenth century. As stated, marriage is now, and has always been between a man and a woman, and this is at the very core of traditional values in western civilization. The definition of marriage extends throughout recorded history of western civilization.
The term, "same sex marriage" is an oxymoron, there can be no such thing, without literally changing the definition of marriage. That is the goal of these socialists and secularists; e.g.; to redefine the definition of marriage. This would be the equivalent of changing the definition of "Murder", or "giraffe"; or any other noun, adjective or adverb.
Despite the concept that many individuals and entities are trying to sell the American public, (including Tommy For News) most of which are from socialist-elitist movements here in the United States, and in this particular case, e.g.; the push for "gay marriage"; it is the militant gay movements within the United States, that has, and attempts to portray any individual that is opposed to gay marriage as somehow being bigoted, and equivalent to being racist, comparing themselves to the black community and the black leadership that pushed for racial equality who were treated unjustly during the mid to late 20th century.
It is not discriminatory for Americans to be opposed to, and rejecting same sex marriages as being a part of normal, mainstream behavior. There is no other definition of and for marriage, other than the term's religious connotation. The premise that there is some kind of "civil definition" of marriage is incorrect. Marriage is in total, an ecclesiastical function; marriage always has been and continues to be."
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment