"Perhaps we need a new American Revolution to defend marriage"

[GFR7]

Author Robert Reilly interview at LifeSite News:

Has anyone read his text, Making Gay Okay; Ignatius Press, 2014 - ? (I have read many excerpts and all the reviews I could find)

Any thoughts on what he says in the interview, about natural law theory?

Robert R. Reilly has penned one of the most important books on same-sex ‘marriage’ to date, yet the book has seen little coverage even from conservative media. Making Gay Okay, published by Ignatius Press earlier this year, has answered how and why the movement for gay “marriage” has swept America and the only way to defeat it – a way that has been largely ignored, with predictable results.

In an interview with LifeSiteNews, Reilly, who served as senior advisor for information strategy for the U.S. Secretary of Defense from 2002 to 2006 and has taught at the National Defense University, noted with wit that the most immediate cause of the current situation in America was “the sexual revolution in the 1960s that separated sex from diapers.”

“If heterosexuals can rationalize their sexual misbehavior, why can’t homosexuals rationalize theirs?” he said. “The deeper cause has been the overthrow of the ‘Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God’ as a source of moral meaning.”

A key element in the erosion of traditional marriage is the notion that ‘rights’ are now being created by the state, rather than coming from nature. “Once Nature is removed as the moral authority, you can declare anything equal to anything else – because it is simply based upon will,” Reilly told LifeSiteNews. “In order to defeat it,” he said, “we have to show that rights come from Nature, not the state, and that sodomy is unnatural.”

Reilly warned that despite the fact that same-sex “marriage” has transformed our courts, schools, military, civic institutions, and diplomacy, the new ideology “now is only beginning to exercise its hegemony.”
.

“The phase of enforcement has begun,” said Reilly. “How can our society remain sane and accept these new rulings? This reminds me of Germany in 1935 with the passage of the racist Nuremberg laws. No doubt, there were still many fine and moral people in Germany, but for the most part they acceded to the pseudoscientific, racist dictates of the Nazi regime. The denial of reality in which we are now involved is just as profound.”

For all this though, Reilly, who as a young man served in the White House as a special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, is confident of eventual victory. “Reality always wins in the end,” he said.

But the road to that eventual victory will not be easy. Reilly suggests it may even take “a new American Revolution.”

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/perhaps-we-need-a-new-american-revolution-to-defend-marriage-author

 

[quip]

“In order to defeat it,” he said, “we have to show that rights come from Nature, not the state, and that sodomy is unnatural.”

If humans perform it as a consentual act of intimacy..than it is clearly natural.

 

[PureX]

“In order to defeat it,” he said, “we have to show that rights come from Nature, not the state, and that sodomy is unnatural.”

If humans perform it as a consentual act of intimacy..than it is clearly natural.

But logic has nothing to do with any of this nonsense.

 

[quip]

But logic has nothing to do with any of this nonsense.

:doh:

Oh. silly me.

 

[TracerBullet]

But logic has nothing to do with any of this nonsense.

:up:

 

[GFR7]

“In order to defeat it,” he said, “we have to show that rights come from Nature, not the state, and that sodomy is unnatural.”

If humans perform it as a consentual act of intimacy..than it is clearly natural.

You may be right.

 

[shagster01]

I don't know how many times I have to point out the homosexuality happens all over in nature. Something that happens in nature cannot be unnatural. It's an oxymoron.

 

[Heterodoxical]

All of that is irrelevant, theologically.

Christ said if your sued for your shirt give them the coat too. There was no "verify their sinful status" option there.

8 lines after that, Christ said God loves His enemies and that love provides for them.

In vs 48 he says to love as completely as the example he just gave of God.

In the last parable in matt 25, the ones who did not have evidence of that type of providential love, were left behind.
-------------

Now, on gay marriage:

It's a state's right, who's government is God appointed, to protect all people it, to determine who is legally married.

The church isn't to judge those outside the church. (Paul Corinthians.)

Your pastors have admitted for years the States have the rights. Ever hear the phrase, "By the powers vested in me by the state of XYZ, I can now pronounce you man and wife!"

If the government makes gay marriage legal, protecting the LGBT community from redneck evangelical bigots the country over, it's their business. IT WILL NOT AFFECT WHAT SORT OF MARRIAGE THAT GOD RECOGNIZES, a countries laws are not required for God to recognize those marriages He puts His hand on.
_____________

In short, the campaigns for no gay marriage are quite literally anti christ.

It doesn't matter that it's a sin, nor an abomination. You marry other sins and other abominations. By singling ONE OUT OF A GROUP, say black people, or women, or little people, or LGBTs, for special notice and attention, you are a bigot. You are not applying the principle to all of that group as you do that one group. You treat the ONE group differently.
---------------------------

Show me where the Church, between Matthew and Revelations, tried to force those outside the church to live by their standards. Give me your biblical example for that behavior. Justify your actions.

Gay sex was much more prevalent in the days of Christ. Your baths were public. People, being naked and close to each other, would often be bumping uglies in public baths. GAY SEX happened there too. It's not like Christ would have never had opportunity to bring this topic up if it required such attention. MORE IMPORTANTLY, there were all sorts of non Christian laws. Christ never challenged one.

What He did do was tell those he taught, to be involved with people personally in their lives, and to be God's instruments for Righteousness, and he defined HOW to deliver that love and under what parameters, which the 'no gay marriage' people do the opposite of.

Author Robert Reilly interview at LifeSite News:

Has anyone read his text, Making Gay Okay; Ignatius Press, 2014 - ? (I have read many excerpts and all the reviews I could find)

Any thoughts on what he says in the interview, about natural law theory?



http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/perhaps-we-need-a-new-american-revolution-to-defend-marriage-author

 

[GFR7]

Thank you for your thoughts.

 

[Quincy]

Good luck on that revolution. There's a tiny bit more disparity between the arms civilians have and what the government has today than there were in colonial era.

 

[GFR7]

Good luck on that revolution. There's a tiny bit more disparity between the arms civilians have and what the government has today than there were in colonial era.

Agreed.

 

[Heterodoxical]

REAGAN ran the last revolution.

Arms need not be involved with a revolution.

Although without them, they will have to beg someone to open the doors when they meet....

 

[GFR7]

REAGAN ran the last revolution.

Arms need not be involved with a revolution.

Although without them, they will have to beg someone to open the doors when they meet....

Do you think Reagen's revolution was a successful one? If so, what do you think was accomplished?

 

[Heterodoxical]

Do you think Reagen's revolution was a successful one? If so, what do you think was accomplished?

A revolution is an ideological shifting cause. Reagan brought an ideological shift in thinking, that quite literally changed the world. I don't put the man on a pedestal, but that is a pretty accurate assessment.

The conservatives today, are holding up pieces of Reagan's legacy, and acting like they are in full form with his Ideas... It's like holding up a painting and claiming you hold the real thing.

The closest thing today to an Ideologue would be Ron Paul. And while I agree with his general thoughts, his means of achieving them are stupid. He would want to change in 4 years what has taken literally 100 years to get to. It will take generations, not years to change the direction of this tide.

Chris Christie may be a candidate who would be ideological, but that's yet to be seen since he's yet to really campaign or commit to any positions on anything.

 

[GFR7]

A revolution is an ideological shifting cause. Reagan brought an ideological shift in thinking, that quite literally changed the world. I don't put the man on a pedestal, but that is a pretty accurate assessment.

The conservatives today, are holding up pieces of Reagan's legacy, and acting like they are in full form with his Ideas... It's like holding up a painting and claiming you hold the real thing.

The closest thing today to an Ideologue would be Ron Paul. And while I agree with his general thoughts, his means of achieving them are stupid. He would want to change in 4 years what has taken literally 100 years to get to. It will take generations, not years to change the direction of this tide.

Chris Christie may be a candidate who would be ideological, but that's yet to be seen since he's yet to really campaign or commit to any positions on anything.

Yes, I think Christie would be an ideologue as well. But what part of Reagen's ideology transformed the world? Economic? Moral?

 

[Heterodoxical]

Yes, I think Christie would be an ideologue as well. But what part of Reagen's ideology transformed the world? Economic? Moral?

It wasn't a part. It was he picked a base set of rules and stuck to them. He had a direction he pointed the ship, and kept it going that direction. He applied the same base rules to all decisions so he was consistent. As such, he could be taken at His word. TRUST BUT VERIFY worked with the most aggressive government we had in our times, perhaps since Atilla.....

He took down the Berlin wall with a speech....

he drove Russia to changing their government.

Since then, more liberal views have, practically given N. Korea nukes, is trying to give them to Iran, let Russian become an invasion force again, unhindered, watched N.Sudan march on Southern Sudan in Genocide....

Reagan had is issues, but his nose pointed in the most productive way that we've seen in my life time and I'm 47.

 

[GFR7]

It wasn't a part. It was he picked a base set of rules and stuck to them. He had a direction he pointed the ship, and kept it going that direction. He applied the same base rules to all decisions so he was consistent. As such, he could be taken at His word. TRUST BUT VERIFY worked with the most aggressive government we had in our times, perhaps since Atilla.....

He took down the Berlin wall with a speech....

he drove Russia to changing their government.

Since then, more liberal views have, practically given N. Korea nukes, is trying to give them to Iran, let Russian become an invasion force again, unhindered, watched N.Sudan march on Southern Sudan in Genocide....

Reagan had is issues, but his nose pointed in the most productive way that we've seen in my life time and I'm 47.

OK, yes, he was consistent and his ideology drove many changes. Of course some argue that the Berlin wall coming down and the Soviet Union dissolving were inevitable. But I get your point. Do you think the present Russia and Putin are more like Reagen than Obama and the US now are?

 

[Heterodoxical]

OK, yes, he was consistent and his ideology drove many changes. Of course some argue that the Berlin wall coming down and the Soviet Union dissolving were inevitable. But I get your point. Do you think the present Russia and Putin are more like Reagen than Obama and the US now are?

in what way?

 

[GFR7]

in what way?

Ideologically driven in a conservative, Christian manner. More empire building. More traditional values conserving (although I guess Reagan was more Libertarian than Christian).

***And more conducive to the revolution Reilly has in mind.

 

[GFR7]

Reilly says:

(Making Gay Okay; Ignatius Press, 2014)

(Chap 9 Sodomy and Education )

"If homosexual acts are moral as so many insist, then they should be normative. If they are normative, they should be taught in our schools as a standard. If they are a standard, they should be enforced. . . "

He then goes on to list public schools and Universities who are doing so on tax payer dollars.

Thoughts on this?

Addendum: Also, Reilly asks us to accept Aristotlean teleology: The fact that all things have a nature and a telos, or purpose. Do you think he is correct in doing so?