« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Having to Choose

Louie Giglio is a Christian pastor in Atlanta.

For the past two decades he has spent his time getting Christians to focus on a topic dear to me — human trafficking. That has been his calling and focus. It is a worthy cause. More than 17,000 people are smuggled into the United States each year to serve as slaves, often in the sex trade. American children are kidnapped and enslaved. Louie has rallied Christians and the secular world to this cause.

But twenty years ago he gave a sermon that could be considered prophetic. He told Christians of the coming pursuit of an aggressive homosexual agenda and that they must not stick their heads in the sand and let happen what happens. You can hear that bit here.

He went further than that. He admonished Christians that, in dealing with the issue, they must do so without hate, but with love. They must not condemn, but lead to Christ. But he also said they must stand their ground.

In the sermon, Louie made clear that the secular world is against Christians on this issue. But most controversially, he said that gays can be saved from their sin by embracing Jesus Christ, through whom all things are possible. Listen to his statement. Louie Giglio’s grievous and offensive sin is that he dares to believe in sin.

His statement is one of orthodox Christianity. Over time, many Christians have accepted that people can be born gay and that it may not be a choice as you or I might perceive it. If we are all born into sin and homosexuality is a sin, which it is, then it seems to fix Christian orthodoxy that one can be born gay. The problem is that, for orthodox Christians, it is still a sin and the world is increasingly hostile to the idea that any sexual sin should be treated as sin. The world is opposed to moral truth and standards and demands intolerance in the name of tolerance.

For the past 20 years, Louie Giglio has not focused on homosexuality. In fact, the controversy is a distraction from his important focus today on human trafficking. But gay rights activists are outraged that he dared say something twenty years ago that was then, as it is now, mainstream within Christian orthodoxy. It is something I agree with him on. It is something that, twenty years ago, would not have caused the outrage it is now causing.

2 Timothy 4:3-4 notes, “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.” Secularists peddling a secular agenda in the name of tolerance have declared Truth to be myth and myth to be truth. They hear what they want to hear and condemn what they do not understand as intolerance.

Many young Christians either have embraced secularism in a bit of conformity with the modern world or choose not to even discuss it. Louie Giglio, for the last 20 years, has not discussed his views on homosexuality lest it distract people from embracing his cause on human trafficking.

But this should be a lesson for Christians. They will be forced to choose between this world and the next on these issues. This world is preaching a new religion of tolerance and a hostility to orthodox Christian beliefs. A time is coming where Christians will have to choose between the Word of God or the words of a bunch of secularists out to make the uncommon common and the common obscene.

Russell Moore noted on this controvery,

by the standards of this controversy, no Muslim imam or Orthodox Jewish rabbi alive can pray at a presidential inauguration.

When it is now impossible for one who holds to the catholic Christian view of marriage and the gospel to pray at a public event, we now have a de facto established state church. Just as the pre-constitutional Anglican and congregational churches required a license to preach in order to exclude Baptists, the new state church requires a “license” of embracing sexual liberation in all its forms.

Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia said in the last year that evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant and then it tries to silence good. Louie Giglio was going to say the inaugural benediction, which would cause the media to highlight the horror of slavery that still goes on in this nation. But in the name of tolerance the secularists have decided we must be intolerant of a commonly held Christian belief and the cause Louie Giglio has worked so hard for these last twenty years will not get the attention it deserves lest some get offended by real Christianity.

More from Archbishop Chaput, who has used his position to put a bright spotlight on the secular notions of tolerance in the modern age and its impact on Christianity:

We need to remember that tolerance is not a Christian virtue. Charity, justice, mercy, prudence, honesty — these are Christian virtues. And obviously, in a diverse community, tolerance is an important working principle. But it’s never an end itself. In fact, tolerating grave evil within a society is itself a form of serious evil. Likewise, democratic pluralism does not mean that Catholics should be quiet in public about serious moral issues because of some misguided sense of good manners. A healthy democracy requires vigorous moral debate to survive.

As Louie Giglio said, Christians should not be hostile, they should not hate, they should not judge, and they should not condemn. But they also must not shy away from real Truth and real Christianity. Just because so many have “itching ears” and “will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions” does not mean Christians should be willing to scratch that itch.

Like it or not, this world will make you choose between it and the next.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • streiff

    I have a hard time understanding why an minister professing orthodox (small “o”) Christianity would want his name associated with Obama’s inauguration unless he was willing to play the role of John the Baptist to Obama’s Herod. By showing up and NOT condemning a significant number of the actions of this regime you end up condoning them.

  • http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

    I actually don’t have a problem with it. If, like it or not, Obama is our leader and all executive powers are from God and we’re to pray for our leaders, we should pray for him, even at his inauguration.

  • streiff

    I think we can pray for our leaders without giving the appearance of condoning them. I also hold the view that the powers Obama has are delegated to him from the citizens who receive the powers from God.

  • gscandlen

    The “I was born that way” excuse doesn’t cut it for me. I was born an alcoholic, and I practiced it for a long time. It was my cross. But God helped me to stop drinking. I am still attracted to booze but every day I choose not to drink and my life is wonderful because of those daily decisions. Being born into a sin does not justify sinning. We are all born to sin. It is the human condition. And homosexuals are no better nor worse than the rest of us that way.

  • kipling

    I think that is an excellent distinction.

  • thirdeblue3639

    That’s a real danger with entangling your religious convictions with politicians. Their failures become YOUR failures. Is that worth the trade-off for the visibility that the presidential inauguration would bring? No. Never. He should never have accepted the invitation in the first place.

  • kipling

    I can think of some prayers for our President – taking into considerations the points made by streiff – that would do him some good.
    “Lord, I pray for President Obama. I pray Lord that he would submit himself to You and receive wisdom from on high. I pray that he would humble himself and serve the country as Your Son came to serve and not to lord it over others. I pray Lord that Your Will would be done in our country and that Mr. Obama would be an instrument of your righteousness. I pray Lord that Mr. Obama would turn to the Truth of Your Word and reject the wisdom of the world and the vanity of modernism. I pray that Mr. Obama would remember that he is a steward of a great nation – a nation founded in Your Word – and that as a steward he will one day answer to You. “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil.” Lord help him to do better. Stop him Lord when he veers from your path. Break him Lord if you need to so that he can be a better President and bring glory to you. Amen.”

  • Lucas Black

    I would suggest that it’s really not the same thing.

  • mch2212

    Great article Erick. Louie is my pastor and I attend Passion City Church. I can’t speak for Louie but he has been clear to the congregation that we are called to pray for our elected officials. I don’t see a contradiction in him praying at the inauguration even though I disagree with many (well, most) things our president does. I believe Louie, without compromising the truth, is able to see the need for our nation to come together wherever we can. Based on some of the comments I think it’s important to note that Louie withdrew himself to prevent a divisive issue from getting in the way. You can go to Passioncitychurch.com and click on ‘blog’ and read Louie’s comments yourself. Even better, you can watch Louie’s messages from the site and see for yourself the heart of this amazing follower of Jesus.

  • gscandlen

    Why do you say that?

  • Bill S

    I suspect pastors like Giglio and Rick Warren believe that they can minister to Obama and gently influence him with time. Not a bad philosophy, but there is indeed a risk of giving the impression of agreeing with his wrong-headed beliefs.

  • patsydecline

    Louie Giglio withdrew himself to avoid any unwarranted controversy that would detract from his primary mission. In appreciation of his devotion to his cause, Erick posts a diary that will undoubtedly stir up unwarranted controversy, thus detracting from his mission.

    Brilliant.

  • Jack_Savage

    William Borah comes to mind.

  • coninkalifornia

    100% Agree. My issue is how this translates into public policy. Should all sinful acts be simply outlawed? There’s private intolerance of sin and then there’s public sanction against sin. I wish theologians spend more time discussing when and how biblical morality should manifest in public policy.

    I’m a fan of private action and feel that government should be a last resort.* Is preserving traditional marriage going to convince anyone that homosexuality is a sin who doesn’t already believe it?

    My thinking is that you can’t legislate belief or faith. The government can’t mandate righteousness.

    The downside is that, as a result, gays and other non-believers feel persecuted. I think they’re totally wrong in that conclusion, but it’s tough to convert an unbeliever if they feel Christians are using government power to persecute them.

    *Abortion is different issue because the life of the innocent child is at stake.

  • westcoastpatriette

    I’m not the least bit conflicted over how to deal with the homosexualists who despise us with a fury. And by homosexualists, I mean all those, whether homosexual or not, who are in agreement with the philosophy of “once gay, always gay/born this way, therefore we are abnormally normal and the rest of you who disagree are intolerant bigots,” and who are on the bandwagon to force this agenda into mainstream American thought and practice.

    In fact, I hold their philosophy on a par with the global warming hoax — particularly the “we were born this way and need to be accepted and celebrated or else!” part, and consider it overt, destructive, aggressive propaganda designed to pervert and subvert wholesome morals — and the rest of us be damned.

    Human nature being what it is, I know not all those who are dabbling in or caught up completely in the lifestyle agree with the propaganda. Many may even hate what is happening and have secret doubts about it, but would never admit it because they are afraid or value the friendships of those who will not tolerate other opinions or viewpoints on the matter.

    Whether or not Pastor Giglio’s decision to withdraw from the inaugural ceremony benefited or hurt his cause is not clear to me as I have not been privy to the negotiations or events that led him to withdraw. But, as a pastor, he is called to preach the whole counsel of God whether it hurts his agenda or not. IOW, no pastors should tiptoe around this issue or be afraid to offend when the time comes to address it. With the info I have, rather than being disappointed that he withdrew, I think it might have been the wise thing to do.

    I think the agenda is desperate for authentic pastors to join hands with them to give the appearance of kumbaya acceptance and as crass as it is, Pastor Giglio may have sensed this and refused to play along. If so, good for him.

    Quite frankly, I have long ago tired of coddling and catering to these extremely selfish and self-centered people. When they come off their high horse of demanding special treatment for their special sin, then maybe we can learn to be more civil and accepting of each other’s views. Until then, we have no choice but to resist them and their agenda.

  • exitsfunnel

    This stuff is way out of the mainstream. It wasn’t 25 years ago, but it is now. I have thought a lot about the politics around this stuff and I am convinced that gay people and issues around gay marriage and gay rights (not interested in semantics for the purposes of this post) are a ticking time bomb for the GOP that will force a major party realignment. I’m not much bothered by this as I think in the long run, the parties will settle near parity as they always do in our two party system. My only concern as someone who is not a social conservative, but is opposed to abortion, is that the anti gay stuff is going to suck the pro life movement down with it.

  • westcoastpatriette

    I beg to differ that my thoughts are “way out of the mainstream.” That’s more propaganda designed to make it sound like everyone agrees with the agenda. Ever heard of chick-fil-a? You have yet to see the push back that is forming behind the scenes and coming on the horizon. Sometimes Americans wait until they are really backed into a corner before they come out fighting and Obama’s recent push for SSM has done that very thing. And your fears that resisting sexual immorality will hurt the pro-life movement is more of the same. Perhaps you would do well to get to know those who disagree if you want to be a real all-around American.

  • exitsfunnel

    I agree with this. I was advocating 10 years ago that social conservatives should adopt the position that the government should be out of the marriage business altogether. In other words, civil unions for all with respect to government / legal interactions and marriage then would be left to the churches. I think that it’s too late for that option now thought.

  • exitsfunnel

    Yeah. for sure. So for the push back against chik fila has been the reelection of Obama and gay marriage related ballot initiatives going 4-0 after having a previous record 0 for 47.

    I don’t know how to break this to you but Mitt Romney was likely the last GOP nominee to be against gay marriage (and even he wanted no part of talking about it) and if he wasn’t, for sure the 2016 candidate will be.

  • exitsfunnel

    One more thought about chik fila. There had to be 1000s of people in those lines and maybe even tens of thousands which is impressive for sure. Except when you consider that the population of the united states is 310 million.

  • westcoastpatriette

    Don’t think I’m in need of you breaking any news to me. Especially, when it’s such nonsense. But then, that is the way the agenda is pushed, isn’t it? Aggressively or else! You are nothing more than an irritating amusement to me.

  • exitsfunnel

    Okay. Not interested in a pissing match with you. I’m just interested in how the politics of all this stuff is going to play out.

  • runner12

    Kowalski: Upon further reading, it seems that there are reports circulating that Giglio was forced out. His letter on the church’s blog page is respectful, yet takes a stand for the 1st Amendment. Maybe his exit was not so voluntary…..

  • westcoastpatriette

    Really?

  • Bill S

    The power of the Holy Spirit is a bit stronger than the diplomatic stuff that Borah proposed. But I understand the parallel you’re drawing.

  • ss396

    Of course. I repent of my sins, but remain a sinner. I will always be a sinner. That is why we all need Jesus’ sacrifice and forgiveness.

    There is not a just man upon the earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not (Eccl. 7:20)
    For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23)

  • http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

    Ah yes, we must not discuss what happened. Brilliant.

  • vangoghssister

    Is it just me or doesn’t anyone else wonder why they don’t call upon the most OBVIOUS choice…Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori of the episcopal church? After all, same-sex holy matrimonyyy….errrrrr….UNholy ceremonies will now be performed in the National Cathedral. Perhaps she could wear her rainbow vestments….very fitting for the occasion and quite fetching./sarc s’cuse me while I go delete those pictures from my computer before it melts or something

  • Jack_Savage

    The Holy Spirit is indeed more powerful, but tends to demonstrate that power in people who extend the invitation.

  • avgjo

    Are you referring to someone who would be struggling against his homosexuality and preached against it as wrong?

  • ww2nd95

    I’m not going to say you’re born as a homosexual, then again I see it differently then being an alcoholic. You’re attracted to who you’re attracted to. If you’re attracted to the same sex and someone comes up to you and says “Hey, you’re attracted to the wrong sex, be attracted to women” or vice versa, are they just supposed to say.. “You know, you’re right, I’m going to be attracted to the opposite sex from now on”.. I just don’t see that happening.

  • ww2nd95

    I agree. I think it’s an issue is best left alone. SSM has been passed in 4 states and I think is on it’s way forward in others. We can say it’s wrong and not right, and the American public will wake up and come to realize we’re right about SSM, but how many elections are we going to struggle with before that happens?

    And people such as Rick Santorum and his statement about comparing homosexuality to bestiality, is not how most Americans view it, and that statement was hurtful to not only Christians, but the GOP as a whole. That’s the kind of talk that is out of the mainstream and needs to be tamped down. Fight the good fight, just watch how you phrase your opposition, otherwise we’ll end up with more Todd Akins and Sharon Angles, who while good people, are not ready for the spotlight of national politics.

  • avgjo

    Okay, and I would be willing to bet that the margins by which homomarriage passed in the paltry 3 states that it did was in the thousands, and maybe even ten thousands, which is impressive for sure. Except when you consider that the population of the united states is 310 million.

  • avgjo

    That wasn’t pushback against chik-fil-a. That was the result of a crap candidate (Romney) who was so unprincipled that he flip-flopped on abortion mid-debate with Ted Kennedy. A crap candidate who, by the way, went out of his way to avoid social issues. Obama, for his part, appealed to every freak, racist and angry woman out there. Romney managed to depress his base by being a terrible candidate, and Obama managed to excite his base by appealing to their worst attributes. That means nothing with regards to chik-fil-a.

  • avgjo

    Why is it out of the mainstream? Because you say so?

    Despite the best efforts of the mind-molesters of the left (media, pop culture and academia),the majority of Americans have rejected this claptrap.

    When we talk about homosexuals who will vote lib for their ‘rights’, we are talking about a very small portion of the population that is really not worth the GOPs time. Their entire lives center around sex. That’s it. That’s why they’re willing to support a communist like Obama, just because he gives them the affirmation they want. That they’re either stupid enough to believe he really cares, or disingenuous enough to believe it speaks volumes. Because these people are willing to put everything that actually matters in our country behind their sexual proclivities, to support someone like Obama speaks volumes about how much use they are to the GOP.

    I say let the left have ‘em.

  • avgjo

    100% agreed.

    This fight is not over, not by a long shot.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    I have looked into the numbers of this sex trafficking thing and they are all over the place. the number you came up with is almost certainly vastly overstated. This looks to me to be just another one of the many causes that people like to jump into with little knowledge and great enthusiasm.

    The problem is that the things that they will call for to try and halt it will do the following.(1) not work (2) may make things worse for the people involved (3) will certainly increase the power and cost of government.

    At the root of nearly all modern problems is some sort of do-gooder cause.

  • jiminga

    The reverend’s absence from the inauguration doesn’t matter to me as I won’t be watching the re-anointment of the worst president in American history. Like many, we spend time building defenses against his actions already taken and those that are coming. I’d rather watch reruns of Gilligan’s island.

  • westcoastpatriette

    So, what do you do when you are attracted to little boys or girls? Just go with the flow?

  • PowerToThePeople

    Actually Kyle, the number is probably quite conservative. The reason there is no consistent number, or as you put it, all over the place, is it is hard to determine just how many foreign citizens are being brought here since most are orphans, unwanted, unaccounted for, the country they come from does little to no census counting, and so on. It is sort of like the forced child prostitution in Thialand, few know how many kids are forced into that, even their own government since most of these kids are not kept tracked of even prior to them being forced into prostitution. The only numbers you get are educated guesses and they seldom are the same.

    Regardless of all that, if just one person is being brought into this country against their wishes and being forced to do things they do not wish to do, that is a violation of our laws, hence dealing with it is no a “do-gooder” cause, it is doing what the enforcement of our laws requires. Enforcement of our current laws, even when it costs more money, is not growing government, it is simple law enforcement.

  • exitsfunnel

    To be clear, I don’t think that it was push back against chik fila either. I think that the whole chik fila media sensation was essentially irrelevant and indicative of nothing, which was the only point I was trying to make.

  • exitsfunnel

    Yes, it didn’t pass by much, for sure. But the salient point is that a decade ago it would have lost by 20 or 25 points. Look, you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to read the polling on this issue. They all put overall support at just over 50%. Just 15 years ago, it was at 25 or 28%. Amongst 18-29 year-olds it’s upwards of 70% .

    The real fight is over. All that remains to be seen is how the end game plays out and over how many years. In any event, the GOP leadership, behind closed doors, understands this stuff as well as I do, which is why I can’t imagine that there is going to more than one more anti-gay marriage GOP candidate, and probably not even that.

    Reading this stuff, it probably sounds like I care a lot about this issue. Really I don’t. If it were on the ballot in front of me, I would vote ‘yea’, but it’s about 100th on the list of issues I care about. The political junkie in me is just curious to see how this plays out in the GOP. As I stated upthread (or maybe downthread, who knows with disquis) I think that it has the potential to force a considerable realignment of the two parties.

  • ww2nd95

    Obviously not. And the people that are end up in jail. Again, as I said before with regards to Rick Santorum, that kind of talk doesn’t help anyone. Comparing homosexuality to either bestiality or pedophiles is again, outside mainstream America and doesn’t help the cause against SSM. All talk like that will do is embolden the opposition and make the GOP look like extremists to middle of the ground “squishy” people, who do not care one way or the other about SSM. And unfortunately, we need that group to win national elections, as we saw 2 months ago.

  • westcoastpatriette

    I am not comparing homosexuality to bestiality or pedophilia. I am challenging your notion that it is preposterous to suggest that people who are “attracted” to the same sex should or could resist that attraction. In your own words, “You’re attracted to who you’re attracted to. If you’re attracted to the
    same sex and someone comes up to you and says “Hey, you’re attracted to the wrong sex, be attracted to women” or vice versa, are they just supposed to say.. “You know, you’re right, I’m going to be attracted to the opposite sex from now on”…You are essentially arguing in favor of those who are sexually attracted to children, aren’t you? And why is attraction to children wrong and to be condemned but not attraction to the same sex?

  • kipling

    If the mainstream is New York and Hollywood, then it is out of the mainstream. If mainstream is the continental United States, then it is not.
    Fiscal conservatism is certainly out of the mainstream – see election of 2012. Do we abandon it as well?

  • kipling

    The re-election had nothing to do with Chick-fill-A. It had everything to do with Romney and the Republican establishment. If the GOP embraces homosexual marriage and abandons the traditional family then they are done as a party.

  • ww2nd95

    Well first off, it isn’t illegal to be attracted to the same sex, if it isn’t a child. And second, who are we to tell someone “Hey, you’re attracted to the wrong sex, straighten up!”. In my opinion, that’s no one’s business but the person who is dealing with it. This is exactly the type of intervention the GOP should be against. It’s their personal business if Jim is attracted to Joe. You can be morally against it and feel that it isn’t right in the eyes of God, but beyond personal feelings of some, the GOVT needs to stay of the homosexual lifestyle.

    SSM is another argument, but I feel that tide is shifting. As exitfunnel said, 70% of college kids support SSM, and some may grow out of that support as they get older, but I’m willing to bet most will not. And along with a slight majority of overall polling, I feel this battle is fading. Fight SSM on the merits of Christianity, but leave pedophiles and beasts out of the discussion. It’s like bringing Rape up during discussions of birth control and abortion rights. It’s a loser.

  • PowerToThePeople

    Since when should someone say something is wrong or right based on what is cool with mainstream America?

  • westcoastpatriette

    I disagree with nearly everything you just said. Quite the contrary, challenging rationalizations used by the left to justify destructive behavior strengthens the arguments against such rationalizations and exposes the weaknesses in them, just as you have done.

    “And second, who are we to tell someone “Hey, you’re attracted to the
    wrong sex, straighten up!”. We are the same people who are resisting the promotion of all sexual immorality — because, if nothing else, common sense and wisdom has taught us that to ignore one’s conscience and violate the laws of nature is destructive and counter-productive to a strong, vibrant culture.

  • PowerToThePeople

    You know 20 or 25 years ago, people took a lot of things much more serious. Child molesters were executed, murder was a capitol crime, people left their doors unlocked because it was safe, people were offended by raunchy TV and Hollywood, people did not excuse behavior with silly reasons, etc. Now, much much different.

    So please excuse me if I do not give a damn that the morality of people is worse now than what it was 20 or 25 years ago. I do not base my conviction on others nor the do I base it on the decline of morality in the general populace. And our party should not abandon principles just because it is not cool anymore or mainstream regardless of the election results.

    Your argument is moronic. Our party has already abandoned many principles based on “mainstream” wants and look where that has gotten us. Right is right and wrong is wrong and if you do not understand that those never changing facts should not be based on popularity, then you have some real issues.

  • exitsfunnel

    It won’t be done as a party; the coalitions will just shift a bit. There is kind of a political analog to Smith’s invisible hand which keeps the two parties in our system always at more or less parity.

  • exitsfunnel

    For what it’s worth, crime rates almost everywhere in the country are lower (and in some cases markedly so) than they were 20 or 25 years ago.

  • Viet71

    I’m not going to change any minds here, but I think it’s important for conservative activists to show a welcoming gesture to conservative gays. It’s important politically. EOM.

  • ww2nd95

    Where’s the weakness in my argument? You say that it’s weak, because it’s common sense to understand that if you violate the laws of nature, society as a whole will suffer, therefore we should do everything we can to stop homosexual behavior. But doesn’t that lead to a slippery slope? If the Govt can intervene on homosexual behavior, can they not intervene on other things they feel are destructive to society (depending on who’s in power at the time)? Look at Obamacare. Obama and the Dems felt that they needed to intervene and straighten up the nations healthcare problems, but all they truly did was add to them as we all know.

    We need to be careful what we want the Govt to do. The GOP will be in power again. We’ll have the WH and the Senate at some point, but then again so will the Dems once again. If we push for the Govt to get involved in what I feel are personal issues, they’ll continue to get involved in personal issues, and dive deeper into our lives. I for one have no interest in that at all.

  • PowerToThePeople

    Oh boy………..you just are completely unable to grasp simple logic huh? If that response is your answer to what I posted, then you are not up to par mentally to continue this discussion.

  • exitsfunnel

    I have absolutely zero interest in trading insults with you.

  • Bill S

    My gesture is “you’re quite welcome to be a Republican”. But it stops there. I’m not going to support homosexual marriage just so 1% of the population feels “welcome” when it is not compatible with mainstream moral values.

  • ww2nd95

    You have to care what mainstream America thinks, especially if you’re a candidate for national office, because that’s who votes, and by extension GOP supporters too because what we do or say can be turned against our candidates. If you’re to far outside of the mainstream, you end up with candidates like Christine O’Donnell and Todd Akin taking easily winnable seats and giving them to Dems.

    I’m not saying let go of principles, just be cautious.

  • westcoastpatriette

    The weakness is that you justify the acceptance of homosexuality by non-chalantly implying that nothing can or should be done about their “attractions.” And other than using the state — because it is illegal — to explain why one must resist attraction to children, you hypocritically expose your argument that homosexuals cannot or should not resist their attractions. If a pedophile must resist, why not a homosexual?

    I am not trying to use the state to intervene on homo’s behavior. I am completely rejecting and resisting their demands to change the definition of marriage and/or to demand civil rights protections for their sexual conduct. You must be libertarian, and, imo, your arguments are weak.

  • http://www.bigcontrarian.com Jack

    Equating homosexual behavior to the behavior of predatory pedophiles isn’t strengthening you’re argument, westcoast.

    One group consists of consenting adults, viewed in the eyes of law of being capable of making their own decisions about what they can do with their bodies and lives.

    The other group consists of people praying on innocent children.

  • westcoastpatriette

    Depends on their agenda. If they are going to oppose efforts to resist the normalization of their lifestyle, including ssm and civil rights protections for their conduct, then they are not welcome. OTOH, if they accept that those goals are incompatible with and impossible to ever achieve in a nation whose principles are rooted in Judeo-Christian ethics, then they are welcome. Some things simply cannot be compromised and this is one of them.

    Personally, I prefer not having to discuss their sex life at all. That would be the ideal I would like to return to.

  • PowerToThePeople

    There is no trading, you are simply being told by me that you argument is weak, wrong, and moronic. It is absolutely stupid to state that we should set our principles or set which principles we will take action on based on the new morality of the populace. It is stupid to say we should back off what is right based on changing attitudes over the last 25 years. You know how stupid the argument is that you are making so I simply reinforcing what you already know.

  • ww2nd95

    I don’t consider myself a libertarian, I most definitely did not vote for Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, though I think Ron Paul has some decent ideas. I do not think what I said was hypocritical, because legality and societal views matter here. If it wasn’t illegal or society didn’t completely reject pedophilia, obviously it would be much more rampant. Society doesn’t view homosexuality in the same way and neither does the law, which is my point as to why homosexuals do not have to resist their urges so to speak.

    My point is, it’s becoming more part of society as a whole, and will continue. We can fight it, but it’s happening before our eyes, and at some point will be part of mainstream America. Continue to fight it, but at some point, we will be cutting our nose to spite our face.

  • PowerToThePeople

    NO you do not. The whole reason we are in the mess we are today is the misconceived notion that we have to kiss the asses of the mainstream and not stand on principle. That is simply not the case and is as far from the truth as anything can be. It is the left that is telling us what mainstream wants and we keep buying it.

    As to your examples Akin and O’Donnell, don’t try to play me for stupid bub. Those two were not beat because of standing on unpopular principle, and you know it.

  • Bill S

    You know, public opinion for repealing Obamacare has declined significantly – now only 33% of Americans want to see it repealed. Therefore, we should give up and let it go forward.

    You see how that works? The fact that Americans are stupid does not mean we should modify our values just to suit the whims of the culture.

  • westcoastpatriette

    Sure it is. When someone suggests that it is cruel or impossible for a homosexual — adult or not — to resist their attraction, the same argument can and is used — ever heard of NAMBLA? — to justify acting on sexual attraction to children. Especially if it is mutual and the children desire it, too, they will argue.

  • Jack_Savage

    What if science proved that pedophilia was genetic, and pedophiles weren’t able to “choose” this “sexual orientation”? How would your view of pedophiles change? How would your view of homosexuality change?

  • exitsfunnel

    I’m not trying to convince anyone who doesn’t support gay marriage to change their position. I am largely indifferent on that front. Really, I’m just musing on the political fallout if it turns out that I am right and that gay marriage is inevitable. One of the major two parties is never going to take a minority position on such a divisive issue. That is the political reality. This is why until recently there were no mainstream democrats who could ever come out in favor of gay marriage, even despite that fact that may of them no doubt supported it personally. Of course it may turn out that I am wrong and that there will be some kind of spontaneous reversal in the culture, but honestly, I just don’t see how it’s possible.

  • http://www.bigcontrarian.com Jack

    It wouldn’t. Science has repeatedly shown that many murderers often have genetic, neurological disorders. I might be a maverick here, but I’m pretty much 100% against murder.

    Homosexual behavior, whether genetically-determined or a choice, is ultimately two consenting adults whose actions affect no one other than themselves.

    I equate the attempt to legislate against it to be the same level of ridiculous as if the government tried to tell me I couldn’t marry blondes (provided said blonde agrees).

  • http://www.bigcontrarian.com Jack

    That’s just beyond ridiculous.

  • ww2nd95

    Akin lost because he weighed into a subject he should’ve left alone. O’Donnell lost because she led a bad campaign and the comments about being or not being a Witch didn’t help her. My point is both of these candidates lost because comments were outside of how mainstream America views things, they were left unsupported by the national party, and the MSM ripped them apart, not because they stood on unpopular principles.

    I think we absolutely have to stand on principle, but we also have to keep in mind the capabilities of the candidates we have to articulate the conservative message in an effective enough way to win. Currently, we do not have a Reagan type candidate who can articulate conservative principles to the degree that the uninformed voter and more moderate democrats (Reagan Dems) can understand/support. Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio are good men, but they’re not Reagan, at least not yet. I just think we have to keep that in mind when it comes to elections.

  • kipling

    Where will the social conservatives – those who make up a majority of the GOP base – shift? Fiscal conservatism cannot flourish in a environment without social values. The GOP is increasingly become Democrat-lite and assuming permanent minority status. As others have pointed out, they are close to become a modern version of the Whig party.

  • exitsfunnel

    To point out the obvious, not having social values isn’t the same thing as not having your exact set of social values. In any event, regarding the political fallout, I really don’t know. That’s why I think that it’s an interesting question. I suspect that when the dust settles the majority of social conservatives will stay in the party, at least if they care about influencing issues around life. Some will just drop out of the process and probably be replaced by socially liberal, affluent suburbanites. A small number who were always uncomfortable with the Republican economic policies of the last couple of decades will probably migrate to the democrats. My only real prediction is that at the end of the day, the elections will all still be close.

  • avgjo

    The problem is that there is a large overlap. I have seen some estimates that a homosexual is over 40 times more likely to molest a kid than a heterosexual.

    Consider:

    Sandusky

    Priests that predated on boys

    John Wayne Gacy

    Allen Ginsburg (big supporter of NAMBLA

    I could go on. Mary Eberstadt writing for National Review (‘Pedophilia Chic’) cites an article, written by a young homosexual man, about why he ‘hates older men’, an article that appeared in the Village Voice. He gives ample examples of how popular pedophilic-themed literature is among homosexuals.

    Homosexuality was once considered a psychological disorder. The reason it quit being so was political, not scientific.

  • avgjo

    THANK YOU. This simple, yet powerful argument should be drummed into the head of every moron who says we should drop social issues and focus on fiscal issues.

  • avgjo

    I’ve seen data that indicates that millenials (the most liberal and co-eenkeedeenkally the stupidest segment of our society) are actually just split on the issue.

    Two points:

    1. 37 states voting AGAINST it and 3 voting for it would indicate that the ‘real fight is over’ indeed – in the opposite direction.

    2. Polls affect the way people view things. There is quite a bit of good literature in Social Sciences that indicates people will follow the lead of polls in forming their own responses to polls, and even their own opinions and voting behavior. (FWIW, I think this played a role in the last election. While I still place most of the blame on Romney and boehner, I think that the polls probably were skewed for a while in what was a tight race all the way through, and this phenomenon manifested itself. Don’t forget, there are a lot of weak-minded voters out there. Also, the mind-molesters of the left read the same literature and make good use of it.) We have seen polls for four years now, ‘indicating’ that people are more approving of homomarriage. etc. etc. I would not be surprised if

  • http://www.bigcontrarian.com Jack

    That first statistic is completely incorrect, and no credible research exists to back up that claim. In fact, some research and statistics show quite the opposite. There is no casual link between homosexual behavior and pedophilia.

  • avgjo

    Read this:

    http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=is02e3

    they make an argument for at least 6 times more likely, and upwards of 20 times.

    I usually don’t use Christian sources, because I know the argument will be made that the source is biased (nevermind the leftist, pro-homosexual slant of secular academia), but this article uses all secular sources.

    I notice you glossed over the inconvenient fact of pedophilic literature being popular with ‘gays’.

    Oh yeah, I forgot to mention:

    The 1972 ‘Gay Rights Platform’ includes as item #7 under its state agenda, the abolition of all age of consent laws.

  • http://www.bigcontrarian.com Jack

    I’ve read that before, and seen it pretty thoroughly disputed. I can’t remember the exact source, but here’s one I had in my bookmarks:
    http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,002.htm

    Basically, your source uses unreliable data, faulty logic, and a complete misunderstanding of the mental disorder of pedophilia to arrive at that claim.

  • avgjo

    I’ve seen the sort of thing you linked to. It makes what I believe is a false distinction between same-sex pedophilia and homosexual sexual orientation. Otherwise, it uses much of the same stuff you referred to: unreliable data, faulty logic et. etc. et. c

    I notice. that you STILL have not addressed the popularity of pedophilic literature among homosexuals, nor the fact that abolishment of age of consent laws played such prominent role in the origins of the homosexual ‘rights’ movement. Nor have you addressed the fact that the APA’s re-classification of homosexual behavior was a political decision, not a scientific one. To me, anyway, these all support articles like the I one linked to. Just curious how you explain those facts away.

  • http://www.bigcontrarian.com Jack

    I’m not sure how to address the so-called “popularity of pedophilic literature” when it seems to come from anecdotal evidence from a blog.

    It is also impossible for me to refute an assertion of a group’s motives, with no evidence offered as to that motive, let alone defend a decision that was made in meetings I didn’t attend in a group I don’t belong to.

    As for the historical linkage between NAMBLA and the gay rights movement, one has very little to do with the other, other than they both happened during similar timelines. This is like equating women’s suffrage with prohibition.

  • avgjo

    Why don’t you look up the evidence referred to by that blog?

    Why do they have little to do with the other? NAMBLA was a member of ILGA, one of the largest homosexual groups on earth, until 1994.

  • avgjo

    And with respect to the 1972 agenda, here are two references to it outside ‘anti-gay’ literature

    Miami Herald:

    Echoes of Miami Beach in Charlotte

    Here’s a homosexuals’ site with it prominently displayed, including the provision to which I referred:

    http://www.robertslevinson.com/gaylesissues/features/collect/onetime/bl_platform1972.htm

  • http://www.bigcontrarian.com Jack

    Because there is no evidence on that blog. It’s just one woman connecting dots that aren’t all that connected.

    As for NAMBLA’s membership in the ILGA, they were voted out. Pretty resoundingly. Politics makes strange bed-fellows.

    I believe you have an inherent, irrational prejudice against homosexuals, which is unsupported by all but the most isolated of facts.

  • avgjo

    I’m talking about the Village Voice Article. He gives specifics.

    ILGA voted NAMBLA out because of Jesse Helms threatening to withhold UN funding until Clinton could certify that the UN gave no official recognition of pedophile groups. That’s the only reason they threw them out.

    I might add that using ‘politics makes strange bed-fellows’ is a really weak defense for a group counting a pedophile organization among its ranks.

  • Viet71

    I disfavor ssm and teaching about ss in public schools (K-12).

    Denying gays civil rights to gays? The law says no.

    I’d much rather spend time, money, and energy resisting the gun ban and educating the public about life in the womb.

  • avgjo

    Yeah, the historian who wrote that article for a large newspaper pulled it out of the sky. Ditto the ‘gay guy’ who put that up.

    But I’ll play. Aside from your statements, and a couple of murky pro-homosexual blog postings, I cannot find any ‘gay’ refutations of this eeeevil Christian lie. Why is that?

  • http://www.bigcontrarian.com Jack

    The “specifics” he gives in the article are essentially that old men like young boys, “between the ages of 15 and 22″. 15 is not pedophilia. It is ephebophilia.

    Which is a cultural problem not unique to homosexuals.

    As for IGLA, I’m not really looking to defend them. That NAMBLA was ever a member of their organization is abhorrent and strange. But I also have no idea as to why NAMBLA was a member.

    But as I stated earlier, this is an isolated fact used to justify and backwards rationalize your existing prejudice.

  • exitsfunnel

    A couple of thoughts.

    (1) Millenials is a pretty vague term, but I’d love to see a link to whatever data you’re talking about. The polling over the last couple of years by the various agencies has all been pretty consistent, with support overall at between 51 and 55% and with a strong demographic skew by age with younger voters more likely to support gay marriage. It has been a couple of years since I’ve seen numbers for 18 – 29 year-olds (the standard bracket) at less than 65% and it’s generally upwards of 70%. The anti-gay marriage position is losing on two fronts. Even if everyone’s attitudes calcified tomorrow, support for gay marriage in the population at large would still continue to increase as older voters are replaced with younger ones. But it’s worse than that for opponents as even setting aside the skew by age, acceptance is growing in all age groups. Again, if you have some polling data that contradicts any of this, I am all ears.

    (2) You’re right about about the 37 – 3 of course and I even pointed out that number elsewhere in this thread. But it’s kind of beside the point. No one is making the argument that gay marriage was a majority position 10 years ago. Obviously it wasn’t. But the ground has shifted faster than anyone thought it would and I don’t see any reason to believe that the trend toward acceptance is slowing let alone reversing.

  • http://www.bigcontrarian.com Jack

    First, the historian made reference to the meeting, and none to any of the more controversial demands in the document you reference.

    As for the “gay guy” who put that up, isn’t it entirely possible that guy found it buried in anti-gay literature and placed it on his website for either reference of refutation. Isn’t it also possible that “gay guy” is a complete idiot, whom should not be looked to as a representative of the entire homosexual population?

  • avgjo

    Okay, dude, whatever. I know if a grown male went after my fifteen year old brother, I’d break his neck – he’s a damned pedo.

    I’m sorry – it was the Eberstadt article that addressed specific works.

    Pedophilia Chic reconsidered – section III

    the Gay Mens Press bestseller’s list included pedophilic works.

    Journal of Homosexuality (Vol 20 Nos 1/2 1990) about ‘male inter-generation love’

    Anyway, it’s clear that neither of us is going to change our minds. I think most people, though looking at the evidence, can’t overlook that there is an unhealthy closeness in relations between the ‘gay’ community and the pedophile pit.

  • avgjo

    Yeah, possible. Just as possible that he knows it’s a piece of history.

    Again, I cannot find any ‘gay’ refutations to the existence of the article. I have found affirmations of the existence of National Coalition of Gay Rights blah blah meeting in 1972 in Chicago.

  • http://www.bigcontrarian.com Jack

    “Grown” heterosexual man go after 15 year old girls all the time. Literally.

    Sexual perversions related to youth are not unique to homosexuals. That you dislike homosexuals, for whatever reason, taints your ability to separate one perversion from the other. “Heterosexual” literature includes Lolita.

    Look out! All heterosexual men are pedophiles!

  • http://www.bigcontrarian.com Jack

    Hence why I said “dubious”.

    I don’t expect there to be always be a refutation of things (though it’d sure be handy). Either way, what reports do exist, say the meeting consisted of all of 200 people. Not exactly a great sample size.

  • avgjo

    And if one did after my 15 year old sister, I’d do the same thing.

    We’re not talking about that.

    I’ve never heard of pedophile romance novels being popular among heterosexuals. And yeah, there are more heterosexual pedophiles than homosexual, simply because heterosexuals are the overwhelming majority of our population.

    I have heard homosexuals claim that many great geniuses were homosexual (based on very dubious ‘historical’ works by ‘gay’ activists), that they are overrepresented in the arts, literature, etc.

    Maybe true.

    but they are also overrepresented in the prominent pedophile group, as I mentioned earlier.

  • http://www.bigcontrarian.com Jack

    “I’ve never heard of pedophile romance novels being popular among heterosexuals.” Lolita, dude. It’s one of the most popular novels of all time.

  • avgjo

    And yet no mass refutation of their agenda.

    I know that in England,in 1974, the Campaign for Homosexual Equality proposed a lower of the age of consent laws to 16, but 12 in cases where a defendant could prove the existence of meaningful age of consent.’

    Waites, Matthew. The Age of Consent – Young People, Sexuality and Citizenship (2005), pp 132 and 243.

    Gay News, no. 46, 9 May 1974, p.3 – ‘CHE Report angers reformers’.

    I guess the early seventies were a heady time for deviants.

  • avgjo

    Yeah. One novel. And a lot of people regard it as a psychological novel. Certainly not my cup of tea. And anyone who read it as a romance novel ought to be shot.

    It interesting to ask; since ‘gay’ men represent such a small portion of the population, how popular must this sort of literature be among them? I mean, it must have relatively high levels of readership to justify the costs of printing it, right?

    books like ‘the Gay Canon: Great Books Every Gay Man Should Read; which recommends several books involving filth revolving around pedophilia, incest and deviancy. The editor refers to one of these as tearing ‘straight to the heart of one of the greatest sources, community-wide, of 1990s gay angst: What to do with men who love boys?’

    Again, it’s all in that Eberstadt article, with citations.

  • kipling

    You need to remember your American history. The Republicans dominated the Presidency from 1860 to 1932 and much of Congress from 1896 to 1930. FDR restructed the political system with the New Deal Coalition and the Democrats dominated much of the federal government from 1930/1932 to 1980. (And yes, I include Eisenhower and Nixon in that.) There is not political analog to Smith’s invisible hand. Politics are controled bypeople and their leadership. Why should the Republicans be any different from the Federalists, the National Republicans, the Whigs, etc.?

  • http://www.bigcontrarian.com Jack

    There are probably lots more pedophilic romance novels we just aren’t thinking of. Lolita is just one very obvious example. I mean, the age of “consent” in numerous US states was 10 in 1880. It’s still just 16 in a few states.

    But see the difference? You immediately assume heteroesexual men read Lolita as a psychological novel, sans perversion, but not that a homosexual man would read its equivalent for the same reason.

    And honestly, as someone who works with publishers day in and day out, you’d be amazed how little potential readership a novel has to have. Especially when it comes to erotic literature, which is largely self-published or friends and family financed.

  • kipling

    westcoastpatriette did not make the argument. ww2nd95 did. wcp simply took the logic applied by ww2nd95 to its natural conclusion. If nothing can be or should be done about “attractions” then the door is open to countless perversion.
    You make the arguement about consenting adults and innocent children. When does a child lose that innocence? Is it okay for a pedophile to have a relationship with a 17 year old of the same sex? What about 15 or 12?
    Acceptance of beastility is a nature consequene of ww2n95′s argument. Unless you want to put an age limit on the animal.

  • kipling

    Why don’t you go to NAMBLA and read some of their arguments? They have made those arguments publicly and some on the left have embraced them. Remember, 20 years ago the concept of homosexual marriage was “ridiculous.”

  • PowerToThePeople

    A) No they did not lose due to being out of mainstream America, stop trying to push a dead horse that is stinking. Akin lost for two reasons, a very poor choice of words (Incorrect statement about rape, not comment out of mainstream) without a very fast “ooops I am sorry” and instead dug in, and we as conservatives and republicans decided that poor choice of words was worth sacrificing a proven conservative and instead chose the very liberal democrat. O’Donnell lost also for two reasons which neither had jack to do with anything mainstream. A) she lost because republicans abandoned her because they had no balls, and B) because she tended to be a bit shady and not quite openly honest about some of her past.

    So stop with the “they lost because of mainstream………..” crap, you are full of it.

    Saying dumb things, like Akin, has nothing to do with what mainstream America thinks, it is simply dumb statements. And the only one of your two examples that that applies to is Akin and he lost because of us, not mainstream America.

  • kipling

    In the past two presidential elections, the GOP candidate has played down and even run from social conservatism. We lost both elections. Social conservatives were just not energized by McCain or Romney. Remaining in the GOP is not the question. The question is whether or not these people will vote, volunteer, and donate. I for one will leave the GOP if they become the party of homosexual marriage and abortion. Fiscal conservatism will fail with the social values needed to make a healthy society. Without social values you are simply rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

  • Bill S

    Likewise. The day the GOP condones homosexual marriage and/or abortion is the day I stop voting.

  • westcoastpatriette

    They have the same civil rights the rest of us do. Not based on their sex life is my point.

  • PowerToThePeople

    I have a better prayer for Obama and Biden.

    Lord, we have strayed from your path, and Obama/Biden has lead us. I pray Lord that you bring Obama and Biden together in a walk and lead them towards a long flight of stairs. I pray that once they have arrived. you cause Biden to step on Obama’s foot causing them to tumble hard down the stairs during which the electronic signals in their spine are no longer able to make it the brain. And if you have time Lord and it be your will, have Pelosi and Reid be at the bottom of said stairs and allow the feet of Obama, of which they love to grovel at, strike these two hard in the head causing extensive damage that will send them to meet you.

    I pray these things in your name and will soon ask for some answered prayers when it comes to some other Charlatans we call democrats.

  • Jack_Savage

    “…two consenting adults whose actions directly affect no one other than themselves…”

    Are you sure about that?

    And nice strawman you threw in there. No one is advocating legislating against homosexuality. You are simply advocating legislating FOR it, and can’t seem to understand the issue we have with that stance.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    As an orthodox, fundamentalist, evangelical Southern Baptist Christian; I always try to couch the Church’s teaching of homosexual sex as sin in the context of Scripture’s opprobrium of all sexual relations outside of same-sex marriage as sin. I never use the term “homosexuality” much less denounce “it” as sin unless it means more than having an “orientation” to that conduct. It is not sin to be tempted/oriented to behave in all sorts of ways.

  • westcoastpatriette

    Oops, I’m sure that’s an error, gamecock. In the second half of the first sentence, surely you meant marriage, not same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is now the norm in the SBC?

  • Sir Aaron

    There are no excuses. God, in Scripture, said it was sin. Therefore, it is.
    Everyone has a choice. One can choose to obey God’s commandments or one can choose to go before the throne of God and plead “but I was born that way.” I’ll just say that the Bible makes it plainly clear how that will work out.

  • http://www.bigcontrarian.com Jack

    Lowering the age of consent to 16 isn’t exactly controversial. It’s still 16 in some states in America.

  • http://www.bigcontrarian.com Jack

    I am not advocating laws for homosexuality. I’m not even sure what that would like. “You must kiss at least one man each year”?

    I’m saying the government should probably not care two whits whether they marry one another. Because it’s beyond silly.

  • The_Gadfly

    If you think that, you are badly, badly mistaken. The gay and lesbian politics is inextricably linked with pedophilia an polyamory. Wherever you find GLADD, you will find Nambla in the shadows. Oh they know enough not to bring them into the public light yet, but they are there.

    I say this not as someone who only reads what others have posted on the internet, but who’s early life involved two years spent as a sex partner for someone who was was into dominance and submission. It broke me in a way I can’t fully communicate to you. And it destroys those who come into contact with it. Not all at once, and not always in ways that you can easily see, but the fruit of sin is death.

  • The_Gadfly

    Both of those candidates lost not because of the stances they took, but because idiots like you in the national party declared them toxic and refused to give them even minimal support from the national party. It’s been this way my entire life: when the rino wins the nomination we have to close ranks and support him, but let a true conservative say something a little off and he gets branded too extreme for the good of the party. Frankly, I’m sick of it.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Yep, fixed it. Thx gal.

  • exitsfunnel

    I’m not as familiar with the exit polling this time around (though I suspect that it is similar) but at least with respect to 2008, that talking point has been debunked so many times that I have no idea how it persists. The turnout of white evangelicals for McCain was virtually identical to the turnout for Bush in 2004. McCain lost because independents broke 3 to 1 for Obama.

  • exitsfunnel

    I am not religious and don’t pretend to understand the religious component of others’ voting preferences, but unless I’m reading that wrong, you would abandon any hope to influence legislation around life issues, if the party stopped being against gay marriage? Or am I reading the ‘and/or’ wrong?

  • exitsfunnel

    Those are all fair points and I am familiar with that history but Washington has changed a lot, especially with respect to the amount of money involved, which has increased astronomically and has all coalesced around the two parties. With the exception of George Wallace who won 5 (?) states, you have to go back 70 years to find a third party candidate who won even a single electoral vote.

    As a practical issue, Americans are stuck with the two parties we have, and it’s hard for me to imagine the circumstances that will move them too far out of equilibrium. You only have to look at the kind of shifts we’ve seen over the last 15 years. It was only 8 or ten years ago that people were taking about a permanent Republican majority but then by 2008, they had lost everything, only to make large gains in the congress two years later.

  • westcoastpatriette

    Nice try, exits’. Why don’t you drop your manipulative efforts to corner your opponents by using the abortion card to try to shut up those equally opposed to homosexually inclined atheists? Or is that too “religious” a concept for you to grasp?

  • PowerToThePeople

    Who cares if you are religious, has nothing to do with the discussion. And if you are unable to understand why religious people vote the way they do, then you need to work on a few things such as principles. See if you vote on principles, religious or otherwise, you would understand the religious “component” that leads religious folks to vote the way they do.

    But that being said, your little smart ass comment towards Bill show us all where you stand. He specifically put the word “condone” in his comment, so your I ” am I reading the and/or wrong” is moronic.

  • exitsfunnel

    LOL. Still not interested in trading insults with either of you two :)

  • PowerToThePeople

    No insults, simply expressing words that fit your character. Not trading insults, simply defining you and the positions you have taken. We are throwing truths.

  • http://www.bigcontrarian.com Jack

    Yes, clearly. Anyone trying to convince conservatives to drop an issue which is increasingly becoming a losing proposition at the ballot box (let alone one that is antithetical to a belief in limited government) must be a leftist. Your logic here is as flawless as your logic above.

  • PowerToThePeople

    Now you are a conservative……….yeah right. You are no more of a conservative than Obama.

  • http://www.bigcontrarian.com Jack

    I’m sorry to hear about your early experiences, Gadfly. I hope you were, or are, able to find a support group or network, capable of helping you through that.

  • westcoastpatriette

    Anyone who tries to convince Americans to embrace sexual perversion and lies about its connection to the molesting of our children is a fool. and not the least bit politically savvy. So you are wasting your breath here.

  • http://www.bigcontrarian.com Jack

    As best I can tell, the only people lying about the connection between homosexuality and pedophilia are the people insisting there is one.

  • westcoastpatriette

    “As for the historical linkage between NAMBLA and the gay rights
    movement, one has very little to do with the other, other than they both
    happened during similar timelines.”

    Oh, they are actually very close relatives in that they both fall into the category of gross sexual perversion and the people involved in any aspect of either have no scruples when it comes to sexual conduct. So, you can stop trying to draw an imaginary line between the two as if that will bring respect to either.

  • westcoastpatriette

    There is no distinction. It all falls under the same category. Pretty simple to conclude for anyone except those involved in it.

  • http://www.bigcontrarian.com Jack

    I’m in no way trying to bring “respect” to NAMBLA. They are a hideous, monstrous organization, who advocate for the removal of basic protections for our nation’s children.

    But yes, westcoast, I get it. You find gays “icky.”

  • http://www.bigcontrarian.com Jack

    Only, it doesn’t. This is like saying that heterosexuals and pedophiles are the same thing. Ridiculous, specious, idiotic reasoning.

  • westcoastpatriette

    hahaha…icky….cute. Do you have any other brilliant observations to make at this point? Or should we consider this discussion concluded?

  • http://www.bigcontrarian.com Jack

    I really like toasters.

  • http://www.bigcontrarian.com Jack

    Someone down voted this? Who the heck doesn’t like toasters?!

  • Jack_Savage

    The government, if it is interested in a stable society with the traditional nuclear family as its bedrock, should care very deeply whether marriage is redefined beyond recognition.

    We have already seen the vast societal destruction that has resulted from liberalism. I see no point in doubling down.

  • ss396

    Short answer – yes. We are in a constant struggle against sin. By ourselves it is not a struggle that we will win or even can win. Our sin persists. The good news is that it doesn’t matter. Jesus has taken all of our sins and paid for them through His life, His death, and His resurrection. We are forgiven, and redeemed of sin.

    Will that person who is struggling against homosexuality overcome it? God willing, yes. On the other hand, that person may struggle unsuccessfully for his entire life. But it doesn’t matter. Faith in the Risen Christ, and repentance of one’s sin will bring the forgiveness and salvation that Jesus earned for us. It’s as easy as that. It truly is.

    Martin Luther once remarked something to the effect that “God’s Word is easy to understand; we are the ones who make it complicated.”

  • ss396

    We were washed; we were purified; we were sanctified. We are not under the Law, but under Divine Grace. But we we are still in the world, and we are still carnal. There is not a scripture of “once saved, always saved”. We cannot escape sin.

    For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. (Rom 7:18-25)

    That is, still sinful. But by faith, it doesn’t matter – we are saved.
    God’s Blessings!

  • hweila

    And? In the exact same way, a person who is a really an alcoholic can’t decide to just drink on an occasional basis. It’s either indulge or abstain. Being born with a biological predilection for a certain behaviour doesn’t render that behaviour moral.

  • hweila

    While it is likely unintentional, when you justify homosexuality on the basis of it being biological YOU are equating it to pedophilia which current studies also show is also biological.

  • daniel22

    I don’t know if this will make a difference in the opinion of your post but pedophiles do groom a lot of their victims to be accepting of sexual advances. When successful the victim does not realize that they have been victimized and will actually defend the perp.

  • mindyr

    It is difficult to believe how wicked this society has become. I choose the next world and life with my Lord. The terrorist tactics employed by some in this country to subdue and beat those opposed to their corruption and perversion had a reverse affect on me, I speak the Lords name anywhere, anytime. I voice the truth in the face of those who condone sexual perversion, murder of the unborn, slavery and the general undermining of good Christian values. I’m not perfect, I’m human , but, there is right and wrong. Those who become angry just hearing someone say God or Lord, I believe their anger is due to the fact that they feel guilt, they know the truth but do not want to live in the manner our Lord intended, they would rather indulge in perversions of the flesh. May God deal with us as he sees fit.

  • coemgenus

    Bishop Sheen probably said it best when he said that the truth should never be a casualty of compassion. While we may feel compassion for someone suffering from the scourge of homosexuality, we must never make believe that it is normal or simply another life style.

  • barbara125

    I’m old enough to remember when a candidate had to be cautious about wandering into the pro gay camp lest he doom his campaign. Now up is down and down is up.

  • jackm

    The libertarians believe that the law may not discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation. Shouldn’t conservatives accept this also?

    There is a reason why religious conservatives such as the bishops have been doing badly in their war. It is because people have come to believe that treating people the same under law does the religious conservative no harm.

    Let’s take marriage, for example. Marriage is one word we use for two things: Civil marriage and religious marriage. The law may not discriminate against two consenting adults when it comes to civil marriage, but religious marriage is beyond the scope of the civil law.

    No law instructs the bishops to recognize even one marriage between a same sex couple.

  • njshibaowner

    I am always amazed at how much time, effort, and passion some straight men take to discuss the sin of homosexuality — something that really should be low on their personal list. How come we don’t discuss the sins of pre-marital (straight) sex or of divorce? Those are things that are just as sinful (by the strict reading of the Bible), impact *way* many more people, and we actually have more ability to change.

    I know, it’s easier to point fingers at others and tell them they are wrong than to look in the mirror. But still, wouldn’t this be a better world if we focused on the the *huge* moral concerns in society?

  • jackm

    With respect to the law, acting on that attraction is and should be illegal. The difference between a gay adult and a child molester is that gay adults seek out consenting adults. Children are neither adult nor capable of giving informed consent.

  • jackm

    You must be loads of fun at parties.

    You say: “The terrorist tactics employed by some in this country to subdue and beat those opposed to their corruption and perversion had a reverse affect on me, I speak the Lords name anywhere, anytime.”

    Are you saying the 9/11 attackers were gay? Terrorism implies violence, does it not?

  • jackm

    Congratulations on your recovery. But if you drink by yourself, or with a consenting adult partner, that’s up to you, right?

  • jackm

    You could look at this the other way, you know. The only reason that Mr. Giglio was “in”, given the countless preachers in this country, was because of his work opposing human trafficking.

  • celador2

    EE, Excellent analysis and essay on the state of the Inauguration and the exclusion of Christian virtues.

    I will not be watching any part of the Inauguration. I had not planned to see it anyway but this Christian , the Rev Gigglio exclusion takes the cake. Obama applies a clergy litmus test and it ain’t the Bible.

    I also will not watch any part of the Oscars. I just read a Nikke Finke report off Drudge of the Golden Globe where she predicted half the audience was lost at the Globes when Spielberg arranged for a Democrat, Bill Clinton to introduce “Lincoln”. She asked, “Couldn’t they have found a Republican. Lincoln was not a Democrat. ” She went on to bash the Spielberg power display with Clinton for using his influence and reminding everybody 24/7 that he , the great Spielberg has so much influence If ‘LIncoln’ loses at Oscars that Spielberg overplay will be why, Nikke wrote.

    I see the same overplaying power and influence process in this upcoming Inauguration by Christian haters.

    The extreme partisan and frankly exclusionary nature of the Hollywood awards shows reflects itself in the Presidential Inauguration. I want no part of either. Shoody, propped up by studio and politcal interests the final product that we the public experience is not the best we have to offer at all.

    No thanks. I say that I will view none of it with a stronger moral force backing me than I did yestreday after reading the EE Essay diary at Red State on Christian virtues are not the same as secular ‘tolerance’.

    One more thought in perspective–John Adams feared back in the early days of US design in 1770s and 80s that there would be a defacto state religion led by atheists which he fought. That is wrong but we see that ever growing de facto religion today too with an evil front called Tolerance. Excesses Tolerance and age of Reason was more in line with Jacobins and Terror and following years in France post 1789 than in US that stuck with Chrisitanity.Admas stayed grounded.

    I hope this tolerant overplay that excludes a Chrisitan worker to save the innocent among us from slavery loses half the Inuaguration audience

  • jackm

    I am wondering. Do you know the difference between secular law and religious law? Secular law guarantees us all “equal protection”.

  • jackm

    Shouldn’t Americans honor the Constitution, including that part about equal protection under law?

  • celador2

    If I might join the discussion and link it to the Inauguration dis invitation to teh rev Giglio.

    Do you or do you not think the Obama team did the right thing by attacking and ecluding the Rev Giglio from the benediction?
    The Rev Timothy Cardinal Dolan who supports NY and Cuomo gun control, but hold firm views on gay marriage hosted Obama at Dolan’s dinner before the 2012 election with Romney. If Obama objects to basic fundamental Biblcal teaching Giglio once believed and many do today, I regret he did not show his true colors in October and decline the Cardina’ls’ invitaion on principles of tolerance, aren’t you?

  • celador2

    There are legal ways to bring about gay marriage and that is to change the law. Proponents need to do that state by state.

  • celador2

    As expressed earlier, Excellent analysis and essay on the state of the Inauguration and the exclusion of Christian virtues. .

    I will not be watching any part of the Inauguration. I had not planned to see it anyway but this Christian , the Rev Gigglio exclusion takes the cake. Obama applies a clergy litmus test and it ain’t the Bible.

    No thanks. I say that I will view none of it with a stronger moral force backing me than I did yestreday after reading the EE Essay diary at Red State on Christian virtues are not the same as secular ‘tolerance’.

    One more thought in perspective–John Adams feared back in the early days of US design in 1770s and 80s that there would be a defacto state religion led by atheists. And we see that ever growing a de facto religion today too with an evil front called Tolerance.

    Under NSDAP and Fascism, Communism, they of the almight GODLess state could not break people of faith from putting GOD first and no other before HIM. Let the atheist tolerant ones, gun grabbers and other forms of totalitaranism be afraid. They will not break evangelical Christians in the US of A. We stand for many things in our virtues and are loving , kind and full of mercy. Single issue we are not.

    I hope this overplay of Obama tolerance, a slap to the Bible, loses half the Inuaguration audience.

    .

  • joehatfield37

    I learned a long time ago that it absolutely useless to quote Bible verses and the Founding Fathers to Secular Leftists. You can pull up some quote to fit a particular situation, then fold your arms across your chest with a smug grin. All the “useful idiot” will do is roll his eyes and think: “Oh, great, here we go again with that stupid fairy tale written thousands of years ago”, or “Sheesh. Here we go again with the dead White male slave-owner nonsense”. You are NOT going to change anyone’s mind. You simply
    have to tell them “NO” and make it clear you’re not budging one damn inch.

  • celador2

    You seem to have internalized media criiticism and fallen into a trap of how to be DNC lite. Still others Republicans would have won both MO and DE probably.
    Mike Castle was a Republican loved by DE voters and woud have given GOP caucus a seat closer to 51. But he lacked the purity tea party voters thought they would win in McDonnel 2010.
    McDonnel and Akin were weaker than opponents and neither should have won the primaries since opponents polled better in general. Mike Castle had a 70% approval but lost to Christine in a mad primary 2010. She had lost two other elections in last two years including to Biden.
    Akin MO picked up the backlash vote in a very nasty MO priimary where top two fought it out and lost voter support. I wanted Sarah Steelman to win as she ran ahead of McCaskill for all the time leading up to vote, but she did not.
    imo far too much negative attack ads in primary that led to top two falling and setting up a backlash vote was a mistake not only in MO 2012.
    Media serving as mouthpieces for DNC highlighted and tried to define both McDonnel 2010 and Akin 2012. Media give some like Democrats a pass and highlight others shortcomings as reality.
    .

  • Bill S

    They can marry any person of the opposite gender they so desire. There are limits – you can’t marry your sister, you can’t marry your dog, you can’t marry your toaster, etc. Just because you love someone doesn’t mean you have the “right” to marry them.

  • celador2

    I agree in my gut and soul. This is not just a Democrat who won like a Bill Clinton 1996.
    I would not want to give the appearance of legitimizing Obama and his imperial actions on all policy especailly his disregard for people of faith and the foundation of mainstream America. I was not going to watch the inauguration and am more fired up than ever not to see it now.
    This Minister the rev Giglo does not make marriage an issue anymore and should be in good standing with Obama supporters, But he is still excluded and dis invited. A group of Stalin like purgers run this show and tehy made it public. They humiliated a preacher who once defended marriage. This is familar.
    This inauguration may be a rehearsal for more maginalizations and shameful exclusions from mainstream similar to what went on in Germany not only with Jews but Others in 1930s. I know the two nations and times are not the same butI see a process of movement.
    Some diaries of a WWII survivor have been translated of life in Germany in 1930s based on everyday humiliations not the headlines by a Jew a Dresden or Munich professor and WWI vet married to a Swede. Viktor Kempler is his name. His field was eliminated not because he was a Jew but it was rendered irrelevant. He studied and taught the Entlightenment. Too French for Germany 1930s. Step by step does he record the NSDAP moving in. and Jews out along with any thoughts that get in their way. And Germany is at the core of civilization in philospohy, religion. Cave, cave, cave.
    There are individual acts of courage in German a Bishop Fischer always stood up and Kemplers have a friend running a clinic who hates Hitler, but for the most part the public went along and joined in.

  • paxcat

    You would be mistaken about your statement re: bestiality and pedophilia. Pedophelia has just been stated in the UK to be simply another sexual choice and they are touting research which states that it is actually good for children. It will not be long before that, too, will be added to the “free to choose” movement of tolerance!

  • celador2

    Obama shows what kind of a narrow president he is by not standing by the minister whom he invited to pray for him as leader US. Where is his pitch for tolerance?

  • celador2

    imo the Rev Rick Warren was infatuated with candidate Obama and made up a need to work on AIDS with Sen Obama 2007. Like he could find no one else? Obama was pro abortion and Rick was so tolerant looking the other way he tried to render his tolerance of O’s abortion a virtue and skeptics of the alliance narrowminded.
    He embraced Obama early flaws and all. .But, Obama kicked Warren in the teeth and hung him out to dry. Neither Obama nor Romney would attend Rick’s forum for a debate.

  • jackm

    As far as I know, advocates of gay marriage aren’t in favor of committing incest or your other examples.

    Here is why marrying your sister is not protected under the equal protection clause: Incest can cause birth defects. So we prohibit this to protect those children.

    Here is why marrying your dog is not protected under the equal protection clause: A dog is not legally capable of giving informed consent.

    I don’t know why you can’t marry your toaster, but it seems a pretty far stretch to compare this to two living, loving, human beings.

    Personally, I don’t want gays marrying someone of the opposite sex. How is that good for either adult in the relationship?

    But I appreciate the fact that you answered. PS. I’m happily married, to a very lovely lady.

  • celador2

    Bill, Marriage is a state law and it is up to state voters not a party but I see your point.
    There are nine states that allow gay marriage most by courts like Iowa and California.
    If the Sup Ct declared Defense of Marriage Act DOMA unconstitutional then that means the marriage contract in one state must be honored in others. DOMA allows states to not recognize another’s marriage.
    Unles part B of ‘Full Faith and Credit’ clause in constituttion applies, every state will be stuck with gay marriage despite their own state law prohibiting it. Most states have even amended constitutions to define marriage as a man and woman. Not two men and three woman one man and woman.
    Let supporters of redefining marriage change their state laws. If they can.

  • paleen

    There are those who are trying to say pedophilia should be legalized on the very rationale you are using that is none of the states business. And just because something is popular is no reason to not speak out about destructive behavior. This business about being “born that way” is no reason to say that it is reasonable behavior. If someone is born with no legs doesn’t mean that it is a good or alternate life style to cut off you legs. If someone is “born homosexual” then it is a disability to be overcome. We need to love all men but that means helping them overcome there problems.

  • celador2

    You think gay issues drive low budgets and debt reduction decisions?
    How far need we go? And why? There are so many people across US who oppose gay marriage.
    Others like your views you now express have posted to me to lead the charge for gay mariage and I have to say my stste oppsoes it in a bipartisan vote.

  • celador2

    States determine marriage criteria for a license and all are about the same,
    opposite sex, married to no other, age of consent and, no close blood relative.
    Without a marriage license a licensed official can not perform a marriage.

  • westcoastpatriette

    Currently, Calif. does not allow ssm. The voters approved an amendment to the Constitution — Prop 8 — defining marriage as between one man and one woman. This is one of the cases to be heard this year by the Supremes. It will be the precedent case for all the other states that have similar amendments in their states. If the Supremes place themselves above God again and strike it down, like they did with Roe v. Wade, we will see even more civil disobedience and unrest.

  • celador2

    thumbs upT

  • celador2

    mch, that is such a lovely message about your pastor Rev Giglo wanting the nation to come together. I appreciate his prayers for leaders and pray they may be guided by Light. Thanks.

  • celador2

    California at least twice voted once in 2000 and again and again to uphold marriage as one man and one woman. The legislature and governor can not pass a law it seems as the referenda to state constitution override in authority the laws.

    If the court once more rules against the voters and their referenum vote then,
    It looks as if governing by majoirty and popular will will be out and we will have a group of judges like mullahs making our laws with the last word and final say not the people through constitutional amendment. Republican democracy as we know it will be a mere suggestion.

  • celador2

    WHy is gay marriage the only issue that critics of GOP offer as the solutioin to win elections?
    Why do you not criticize us for wanting to lower taxes and dowsize entitlements?

    Why this fixation to gay marriage is the solution.

  • rightlane1111

    The only good thing that I can see coming from homosexuality is tolerance. Now…what is to be said of tolerance. Well, we tolerated Stalin, we tolerated Hitler. We have tolerated many things. Now from a spiritual standpoint, where does tolerance end and enabling begin to the detriment of society? Have we crossed the line, wherein it is impossible to turn the tide?

    I am not of the belief that a man or women is born into homosexuality. Sorry to all that believe that. If you take the case of a pedaphile…most of the times this behavior carries through the family generation and some doctor…or shrink then thinks it is a good idea to get it classified as a disease and get paid. So, without even realizing it, through our supposed compassion, we classify it and give it some legitimacy. Forget the fact that the “child” has learned a dysfunctional concept of sexuality, usually from a same sex relative.

    I am Catholic…but what a respectable profession to enter into wherein one has those tendancies. How many lives have been corrupted by abnormal, God given instincts that allow for procreation. The victim then either repeats the action…or they fall into drugs and alcohol because of guilt and shame.

    But…we’re not done yet. We can now watch TV and on any given channel, we give credence to the Gay person. It is a subliminal message that says to anyone…this is OK. However, deep down in every person lives the spark of the Divine and when that is doused with abnormal behavior, nothing but continued corruption can occur until that person, to try to legitimize his/her behavior lobbies Congress, to insist that they must be accepted because they cannot stand guilt/shame. What do we do…we comply and more and more people fall into the pit of iniquity.

    We have even gone to the extent to teaching, through our Federal Government via the school system that it is OK for Johnny to have two daddies. Well…when Johnny grows up…what is his “NORMAL”? Just exactly what he learned. The more evil chips away…and it is evil at morality..the more vulnerable we are. Our laissez faire attitude has given us exactly what we have. We could, for the sake of some of the pro-homosexual agenda go into the actual performance and what it entails…but then I don’t think I could post any longer. Another question…Why does the majority of HIV AIDS people have this condition and what has it cost us in terms of dollars because of their proclivity?

  • rightlane1111

    Go read above…HIV Aids…what % of Gays have it and how did they contract it?

  • sliverlining

    ” the GOVT needs to stay of the homosexual lifestyle.”
    Isn’t that exactly what the homosexuals WANT? Governmental/legal sanction?

    How does one argue this point with any logical base? Emotional or non-emotional statements come from both sides.

    Do you care who I love? Apparently lots of people care who I hate.
    What is the difference to a disembodied group of busybodies? I hate thin-skinned, crybabies who are chronologically old enough to know they are banging the pan to scare up any issues they can. Why? Need attention? Lonely in a too-crowded world? Lots of us don’t care about your cause(s). Go home and shut up. (ww2nd95, I’m not referring specifically to you in this wandering ramble).

    It’s a weary topic that is akin to my hating tattoos. Most are worthless, vacuous “messages” to the owner of the tattoo, and pointless to discuss.
    Being gay is apparently permanent in most cases even though there are technologies to change things if time and money and the will to do so exist.

    What can I tell the tattooed person except my opinion? If I did, would it matter? Maybe, but, chances are nearly 100% it would only matter in a negative way since I don’t think much of most tattoos.
    What can I tell the gay person except my opinion? The difference is one very obviously demonstrates a choice and perhaps a message/art of dubious merit. The other is much more nebulous and personal in that it may be entirely different for each person and by extension their reasons vary widely.

    I don’t really care for tattoos. I’ve seen a few that are ok ; )

  • jackm

    Ok… and what does this have to do with the state and federal government to provide equal protection under the law?

    What is equal protection under law? I gave an example below: It is unthinkable that we would have a law prohibiting Catholics (or the Irish, or any group) from serving on the Supreme Court. Or getting married.

    That is equal protection under the law. BTW, the 14th amendment puts this obligation on the states.

  • eddiethegeek

    Let’s make an important distinction – same-sex attraction is not sinful. It is disordered (not properly ordered, and all of us, as a result of original sin, have our own disorders) but only when one chooses to act on that does it become (gravely) sinful. Homosexual “sexual” encounters are both disordered and seriously sinful. And the point of this posting is absolutely spot-on: the culture of “this world” will not tolerate anyone’s preaching these truths. Eternal lives are at stake.

  • exitsfunnel

    I’m not so much advocating that the GOP accept gay marriage as just taking it as a given and wondering how that affects the coalition. My belief, based mostly on polling but also on just sort of reading the cultural tea leaves, is that support for SSM has reached critical mass (and steam rolled right through it in fact). My further belief is that the political reality is that no party in a two party system is ever going to stake out a minority position on something so culturally divisive as the definition of marriage. It would be political suicide. Try to imagine one of the two parties being against interracial marriage or women in the workplace.

    To be clear, I’m not asserting that support for SSM is at those levels yet, because obviously it’s not. But the trajectory is as clear to me as the trajectory of our national debt. In both cases, I guess that it is theoretically possible that something entirely unexpected will happen, to change the course, but in neither case can I almost even imagine what that thing would be.

  • celador2

    We are witnessing the power of the bully pulpit as never seen before. Well Bush and the GOp made a ban on partial birth abortion popular and now OBama is trying to normalize gay marriage.

    Marriage is set and legislated in states and those laws ban the unions in all but about nine. If gay marriage is as popular as DNC say then why do they not get to work and change all those state laws.

    Last time I checked there are 30 GOP governors and 24 or 25 state legislatures also GOP.

    Take it to the people in the states where the battle belongs..

  • celador2

    Make changes at state level is way to go. Marriage is not equal and open to all. Its crieria are defined by a state by majority rule in legislature and governor in the form of marriage license criteria which I listed. The criteria have nothing to do with anything goes under an entitlement but are very specific who can apply and receive a marriage license. .No one marries without one.

    There is a case in Utah pending a Bob Green i think is his name and five wanna be wives. They take issue with the Utah criteria of ‘married to no other’. All are of age and not close blood relatives but they want to be married to Bob at the same time.
    Green has one wife and wants to wed four more.He makes the ‘equal protection ‘case too. Utah says no, only one wife, one husband.

    Bob and the four or five ladies who want to marry him say under 14th ‘equal protection’ that Utah is prohibiting Green and his five wannabe wives from marrying under ‘equal protection’.
    Utah says Utah defines marriage not US.

    Poor Bob Green will have to marry in a state that allows for multiple partners but not Utah.

    Do you think Green and his multiple partners are entitled to marry in Utah and that its ‘married to no one else’; criteria is illegal under US law derived from Amendment the 14th 1868?

  • http://www.bigcontrarian.com Jack

    …I have no idea what that has to do with anything other than, “Yeah, pedophiles are sick, disgusting people.”

  • celador2

    And when Bob Green and his five wanna be wives also try to get marriage license under ‘equal protection’ and by pass the ‘;married to no other’ criteria, then what?

    Utah says no to multiple marriage partners in its marriage licence application. But Bob Green and his wives say they receieve 14th amend protection under equal protection and can marry in Utah. States define mariage criteria,whose definition is not a US authority, it resides in states under Amend the Tenth 1787-88.

    Who decides who can marry in Utah?

  • celador2

    What have you and your supporters done in your state to legalize gay marriage.
    At state level is where the political action resides asince states determine marriage standards.

  • celador2

    States have always been in charge marriage critera for a license to marry. if a state wants to change its mariage laws it is free to do so. However not all people of faith use churches to marry. Puritans often were married by a magistrate. Not everyone is a church member and marriage is a civil union act not merley a religious ceremony hence the two parts to marriage.

    One get get a license, two find an offical to perform the marriage..

    opposite sex, no close blood relative, of age of consent , married to no one else.

  • exitsfunnel

    Just because the states have always issued marriage licenses doesn’t mean that the process couldn’t be modified so that they issue licenses for civil unions instead. In any event, as I said earlier, I think that we are beyond the point where this is kind of compromise is possible.

  • hobarticus

    Bingo. As a young, pro-gay Republican myself, I think the polling is shifting because more of us know more gay people than ever before. Instead of being some strange, imagined boogeymen, they’re our friends and family. Or in my case, both my boss and my brother. Those guys are so wholesome, the idea that there’s something disordered or immoral in their behavior is actually kind of hilarious to me. Kudos to you and others here for expressing your POV on the issue. I think there are a lot of us out there who don’t speak up because we just don’t have the patience to try to counter all that ignorance.

  • celador2

    Anyone who wants to change marriage laws should get to work and do that. If it is as popular as you say then move along and change the state laws. Do not worry about the Republican party or any traditonial people.
    If gay marriage is really that popular states will change laws.
    What about multiple partners. I am serous since LDS excomunicated self identifued Mormons in Utah and west hold polygamy is sacred. They also want equal protection under US Amendment 14th, 1868. Unlike gay marriage ‘multiple partners marriage’ has been widespread and a norm in civilization. One man one woman is a Christian policy that guided US laws on all levels.
    Utah had to adopt it to become a state.

  • celador2

    Are there any efforts in your state to change the marriage laws? I mean if it is so popular get moving.

  • hobarticus

    There were, and we did. In fact, Mom’s already putting pressure on my brother to marry his boyfriend. I think it’s because they’re a better bet for a grandkid than I am at the moment :)

  • Viet71

    Disconnect. I don’t favor ssm, given the long history of traditional marriage and its deep roots.

    In any event, Connecticut, where I reside, allows ssm. No biggie. Far less a deal than the economy and taxes and now guns.

  • celador2

    The state level is where the action takes place and at that level its supports shows. Supporters must change laws on the books there a long time There is a level of exisitng support even a reluctance to alter them. I do not see the mad rush to change state law you do.

    I am not sure why this issue is the only issue critics ever raise at RS out of all the issues we have taken that we might change to win votes. But this issue is an obsession with liberal critics at RS however it is packaged.

    Like growing handouts and entitlements has appeal to many who vote for Ds. We call for unpopular cuts but if we did not we might gain more votes and grow debt. We might as a party call for gun control and win votes. And more tax hikes, there is a big winner with many voters to raise taxes and redisitribute them.

    The D clone list is endless but the only one critics bring up is gay marriage should be a rally point for Republicans since the public suddenly has a swell of support for it. Is gay marriage more popular than more tax hikes?

    Out of all the critics it is one voice and one message 100% that gay marriage will set you republicans on the road to win. So start early pushing gay marriage just like the Democrats.

  • Melody Warbington

    Obama got a lot of support from the younger generation as well. So did the occupy movement. Look where that’s gotten us. Good luck putting your trust in them.

  • celador2

    What specifically do you want us to do, jump on a bandwagon you say is moving full speed ?

  • celador2

    Then you are doing the democratic small d thing–working at your state level to get laws changed. That involves the majority will through the legislative process. We can ask for no more.

  • celador2

    We could win many more votes if we forget debt , a budget and raised debt ceiling and spent away like there was no tomorrow. Just like obama did.

  • celador2

    The two go together. Social issues voters are also fiscal conservatives in a more reliable way imo.

  • celador2

    States already do issuse licenses for civil unions. Its easy.

    Marriage is a civil union sanctioned by the state and each state in the union has a similar process. Each state has the authority to issue the criteria for applicants to meet and for officials to perform the ceremiony in counties and cities.
    US Amendment The Tenth 1787-88.

  • celador2

    Obama made gay marriage a politcal issue and a preacher the rev Giglio was pushed off the Inauguration for once opposing it in a sermon. So his ouster is the topic.

  • paulryancult

    Great post. Perhaps Louie did not want to provide Obama the cover of a real pastor giving his benediction?
    I prefer to counter the “homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality” movement with science; specifically, biology and cultural anthrpology.

  • celador2

    I also will not view it and so posted. I decided not to see it before the episode with the Rev Giglio. Nothing in it for me watching Obama and his supporters.

  • Lindbergh

    “…all executive powers are from God”

    No. Executive powers are derived from the Constitution, which derives its authority from the consent of the citizens of the Republic. Of course, we our endowed by our Creator with, inter alia, the Liberty to grant this consent to Executive power; but the power itself arises from our consent, not from God, and our consent may be withdrawn as easily as it may be granted.

  • celador2

    AMEN

  • confab

    I don’t really care one way or the other.. If they’re “born gay” or not..

    What I do know is that deviant behaviors don’t convey rights. Inclinations towards Incest,
    bestiality, pedophilia, etc.. don’t convey rights upon those who are so
    inclined to practice these things.

    As a practical matter, I dunno why the GOP keeps getting skewered on these issues at
    the federal level.. All of these things are clearly state issues via
    the Tenth Amendment.. I don’t know why they even need to be addressed
    at the Federal level at all.

    And while it’s true that homosexuality isn’t the unforgivable sin, it’s also true that the Bible says that they have been “given over” because of their ways.. I assume this means that they don’t seek God and he has permitted them to go their own way, and do as they will..

    The gays I know are single issue voters, at their core.. They vote the act of homosexuality, period. It absolutely dominates their existence. That’s sad, but it’s true.. If the GOP wants to court them, as many have suggested, it;’s going to have to completely capitulate to them.. Nothing else will be enough.

  • celador2

    Mel, if a youth has a job and is among workers he or she oftens supports conservatives. In the Walker election 2010 and recall 2o12 the youth vote was R 45 – 55 for Ds and Walker kept union household support by a third. Only public employees get full AFL CIO support not private sector workers even unionized ones btw..

    Now, Occupy types and group thinkers not in workforce but deep in debt tend to go DNC as they did for president, but I was pleasantly surprised how many youth Identify with a governor who stands up for tax payers and wants to lower taxes and bring JOBS to Wisconsin.
    JOBS have a magic potent about them.
    Youth ages 18-29
    .

  • confab

    There’s nothing “extreme” about it..

    Perverse acts don’t convey special rights.. In this way, homosexuality is exactly like other deviant behaviors.. Including (but not limited to) bestiality, pedophilia, incest, etc..

    We don’t give people special rights because they choose to drive drunk or rob banks, either.

    And it should be a states issue anyway.. Everyone gets so bound up over the “social issues” but they’re simply not a federal matter.. They belong to the people and the states, via the tenth..

    If i were a politician, I’d simply say that when asked about any of these things..

    “No, I think X is immoral and wrong.. However, the Constitution leaves this matter to the States and the People to decide for themselves.. ”

    I think that’s perfectly reasonable.. It has the benefit of being Constitutional as well.

  • confab

    I’ll say something else.. and this may not be a popular idea.. But..

    Was anyone listening to Rush the other day when he was talking about the Democrat Lawmaker from New Hampshire (I think?) and how she wanted to intentionally, with full forethought.. Calculate and pass laws with the intention of driving Conservatives out the state?

    Now that sounds pretty evil.. But that’s effectively what the democrats have done with their agenda, turn blue areas into a Conservative free bastion that they can rule unimpeded. It also permits them to spread across the electoral map and turn red areas blue, because there’s nothing undesirable about living in a red area.. But if you’re a conservative, there’s definitely something undesirable about moving to a dark blue one.

    Since this is the case.. Perhaps when legislating, we SHOULD consider issues that might create an impediment to liberal migration or make an area less attractive to them?

    Laws against gay marriage, for example, may be one of these issues.. Something that would act as an impediment and encourage them to consolidate themselves in their blue areas.. and suffer the crime, taxes and everything else that their policies carry with them as a consequence.

  • confab

    In fact, people like Nanny Bloomberg in NYC.. do you REALLY KNOW that he’s not proposing all these absurd regulations with the intention of driving Conservative minded folks OUT? Or making it less hospitable to Conservatives contemplating a move to NYC?

    I mean, I don’t know that.. I don’t know why he’s doing it. But it’s certainly a possibility that he’s behaving this way with the same underlying motive as the Democrat lawmaker in New Hampshire..

    ?

  • jackm

    Are all Democrats gay, then? Who are you trying to keep away from red states?

  • jackm

    Doesn’t effect me how many women want to marry one guy.

  • jackm

    Ok. What you wrote here appears to have nothing to do with me.

  • confab

    lol.. No I’m not suggesting that.

    Many measures might be employed.

    Reducing subsides, for example..

    Basically ANYTHING that renders the ground less appealing.. Anything.

    Be it economic, social.. whatever. If they, and only they, hate it? We should consider it.

  • jackm

    Ok, celedor, you have no answer at all to the point about the equal protection clause. I understand now.

  • conservative_dan

    Homosexuals are no more born that way than I was born desiring to do what is evil rather than good. Humans are flawed, and we each have to deal with issues in our lives. Some have to deal with the urge to steal, others the urge to have sex outside of marriage. Still others are chronic liars. All of these issues are contrary to the laws of God and are equally damning. The idea is to not ACT on these urges. That includes homosexuals. If they physically act on their urges, they are having sexual relations outside of marriage. This is sin. Marriage is the bringing together of one man and one woman so that they become one flesh. Sex is only acceptable in this setting. But I don’t believe gays are born any different than the rest of us. We all each have our crosses to bear.

  • jackm

    I’m not really the arbitrator of what constitutes sin. But I will tell you one thing. It is probably better to have gays marry someone they love, rather than faking it with someone of the opposite gender.

  • stankerr

    There are such things as gay conservatives and libertarians, and they don’t want to be your enemy. Lord knows the liberals despise us already, and the gay liberals doubly so. If you want to fight the good fight for liberty, you will have to accept as allies some (fellow) sinners. I’ll agree not to talk about my sex life if you agree not to talk about yours. I don’t really care much about ‘marriage’ since my bond with my partner transcends laws. (OK, I’m an atheist too; 3 strikes!) Do a google on ‘gay conservative’ and you’ll see you’re not alone in the fight against socialism and tyranny.

  • kipling

    Should have stopped with the first sentence. You were on solid ground there.

  • PowerToThePeople

    No Jackm, what she nor anyone else has is the answer you want. The equal protection clause does not guarantee a very small segment of our populace extra rights. Since you are referring to the gay community, the answer is simple. They have equal right as I do to marry someone of the opposite sex whether for love, lust, money, etc. But the Equal Protection clause does not afford them the right to infringe on the sanctity of marriage, a covenant that predates their desires, nor does it grant them special rights to marry the same sex. Marriage has restrictions, can not marry a sheep, can not marry your hand, can not marry your sister, and so on and all these laws govern each and every person equally.

    You do not have a right under the constitution or any other law in the land to have an equal amount of my money or an amount of money equal to mine, I do not have the right to an equal car like you. Equal protection does not grant equality in everything, its limit of power is quite small.

  • PowerToThePeople

    No one is telling gay conservatives or even gays themselves that they can not be in the party nor do we deem them the enemy. Anyone willing to support the republican agenda is welcome. But if you really do not care about marriage as a gay person, then you are in the minority. And that is where the line is drawn. You and every other person willing to fight with us are welcome, but if us bending over, excuse the pun, and throwing away our standards, beliefs, and morals is the prerequisite of you or any other gay person joining in with us, then we will pass. Let me give an example outside of the gay issue……

    I want abortion doctors tried for murder and if convicted, sentenced to death. Few in the party agree with me. I have always been welcome in the party and as long as I do not demand that issue be accepted in trade for my membership, I will continue to be welcomed. Same applies to the issue of SSM and the republicans in the gay community. Fight for it if you want, but we will not join you on that issue nor will we allow you to hijack our party for that cause.

  • mrsbadcrumble

    Straight people have the right to marry the person they love and are spending their life with, gay people do not. This is NOT equality.

    To make an analogy, imagine that only size 30 pants are legal. Everyone has equal rights to wear size 30 pants. If you have a 30 inch waist, good for you. If you have a 40 inch waist, you effectively do not have the right to wear pants. The right to wear size 30 pants is useless to you. Similarly, the right to marry someone of the opposite sex is useless to a gay person.

  • PowerToThePeople

    Not very clever with the pants analogy, but nice try. And so what if a person can marry the opposite sex yet a person can not marry the same sex, there is no discrimination. Sisters can not marry brothers, do you have issue with that. If a sister loves her brother that way, should they be able to marry? How about Johnny and his dog rover. They love each other, should they be able to marry? How about all the geeks who love their hand, should they be able to marry their hand? How about the guy in Japan who wanted to marry an internet character, if he moved here should we allow them to marry?

    Love has nothing to do with the right to marry, it simply has to do with the time honored tradition that marriage is defined as a man and woman committing to each other. Many marry for love, many for financial security, many for arranged reasons, and so on. Not one gay person has been denied that same protection hence there has been no violation of their constitutional rights nor has the Equal Protection clause been violated. Matters little if they have no use for recognized marriage, not my problem. But your argument for them holds no water.

  • mrsbadcrumble

    “marriage is defined as a man and woman committing to each other.” For gay people, the only difference is the “man and woman” part. It seems a bit arbitrary; the important bit is the part about “committing to each other,” is it not? What is so unbelievable or unfathomable or whatever about gay people committing to each other like straight people do?

    By the way, your questions in the first part are a bit ridiculous… dogs, hands, and fictional characters cannot sign legal contracts (marriage licenses). About incest and polygamy… as long as everyone is involved is a consenting adult, I don’t see how it’s my place to tell them what to do.

  • coemgenus

    As Bishop Sheen once said, “The truth should never be a casualty of compassion.” Homosexuality is not a good. Others have pointed out that for orthodox Christians, the only legitimate sexual activity is between a man and his wife so homosexual activity is not being singled out for opprobrium. On a more secualr note, why shouldn’t the government favor heterosexual couples who produce, raise and educate the taxpayers of tomorrow who will be paying to support the barren gay couples in their old age?

  • celador2

    I did answer by setting up how marriage works throuh a state, but not clearly enough so we can try again.. You want to know why a clause ‘equal protection’ from Amend 14th 1868 does not apply to gay marriage across US today.
    IMO So far your reference to ‘equal protection’ derived from US amendment 14th 1868, does not apply to marriage for gays to each other nationwide. They can marry only only if a state does authorize marriage to a couple of same sex.
    However if Defense Marriage Act DOMA 1996 is declared illegal the ‘Full faith and Credit’ provision of US constitution regarding contracts among states may kick in and states would honor all contracts from other states. There is an opt out in part B to FFC not used much that might rescue states from honoring gay marriage and other forms the state finds outside the states’s moral value system..

    DOMA 1996 and Amendment the Tenth 1787-88 exempt states from recognizing gay marriage or any form of marriage the state has not authorized.
    One example of a state regulating marriage standards and coming to blows with residents is ‘Age of consent’ is the state’s to set. No arranged child or non consentual minor marriages do we allow. Here is where many refugees get popped. All residents are subject to US law as supreme. refugee girls have complained to schools about forced arranged marriages and local law enforcement act on their behafl based on state law and age of consent. Even if a girl or boy agrees if underage NO marriage.
    To be more direct currently the states have authority to regulate marriage and so do through settiing by law criteria for a marriage appliication administered mostly at county level. This marriage regulation authority derives from the start of US from US Amend, the Tenth 1787-88.
    Those marriage criteria set by legislature are opposite sex, no close blood relative, age of consent and married to no other at the time. That is only part one for an applicant. Next find an offical registered and authorized by the state to perform the marriage.
    States used to regulate crime, morality and practice of medicine and still do somewhat. SInce 1973 a coded or implied right to abortion has usurped the states’ authroity to regulate medicine under abortion is a national right, using several ‘coded and implied rights,
    Judge and professor Scalia, a textualist and originalist makes it clear community values and states can define as immoral and illegal anything they want.
    Marriage is not a right but it is a fundamental liberty however. States see to it that we keep it as a foundation upon which to build the future social contract.
    Is it only fair and just under the overused and misused ‘ equal protection’ to allow ME refugees to marry underage girls off with or without their consent, to allow multiple partners?
    If ‘equal protection’ under US amend 14, 1868 overrides US Amend Tenth 1787-88 , marriage law by states residents , mean nothing but everything and anything goes. Is that the road we travel?
    Why have you no trust in the people to continue to define marriage by state law?

  • celador2

    Incorrect. Gays can live a life they with whom ever they want. They want to call that arrangent’ marriage’ which since time beagn has had a different meaning.

  • celador2

    you wrote—
    >>>>About incest and polygamy… as long as everyone is involved is a consenting adult, I don’t see how it’s my place to tell them what to do.
    00 >>>
    OK here is where regulating what is safe and healthy and moral step in and declare those forms of unions will not be sanctified by marriage. My state does not allow multpile marriage partners polygamy or incest partners. By majority rule we regulate that behavior out of our society as marriage.

    That values based regulation is a republican virtue in action , a nation founded on self government at work for the common good. Amend Tenth 1787-88

  • celador2

    Taxes at state level with so many GOP in charge may come down in next two years. I have doubts though as the entitlements are so entrenched. Lower income taxes would be so fantastic here. It will not happen. My state is fifth in taxes and was losing businesses.
    Gallup shows a 35% want stronger gun laws, up from 25 in 2012. Imo Ds are on an emotional blame gaming roll on gun grabbing and other forms of regulation but will not add a tougher sentence for a crime commited with a gun.

  • PowerToThePeople

    So you just stated you have no issue with incest and polygamy are A-OK with you and that is why no one with any common sense is willing to allow an encroachment on marriage. I have to give you one thing at least, you are one of the only ones willing to admit you are a disgusting POS and that you have no issue with all kinds of disgusting behavior. Most who support SSM are not quite as truthful.

    But again, you can not redefine marriage just because you want to. I do not care whether two gay people “commit” to each other, that has nothing to do with them and you demanding that marriage be changed to suit a very small portion of our society. And it def does not mean we need to change it for all the other perverted forms of “commitment” you are willing to be OK with.

    You are a scummy person deserving of contempt, you have mine.

  • ragstoriches

    Legal does not mean moral. Adultery is legal, too, but most rational adults consider it immoral. If I feel an attraction to another man though I am married, I am admonished to not follow through. Scripture teaches sexual immorality – adultery, homosexuality, etc… – are to be avoided. They are sinful, and how you “feel” about it is really not the point – it’s how God feels about it that Christians should be concerned. Cultural Christians who ignore that are no better than secularists.