European Parliament Backs Gay Marriage
From the desk of Paul Belien on Sun, 2006-01-22 10:45
The European Parliament has condemned countries that do not recognize same-sex unions as “homophobic.” It did so last Thursday by approving a (nonbinding) resolution with 468 votes against 149 and 41 abstentions. Catholic groups criticize the EP for meddling in affairs outside the European Union’s competence.
Mario Mauro, one of the 149 MEPs opposing the resolution, said that “an ideological document has been approved that has very little to do with the concrete protection of people’s fundamental rights.” According to Mauro, a Forza Italia politician who is also vice president of the European Parliament, the resolution, which refers to religious freedom as a “source of discrimination,” is “in open contradiction with treaties and even common sense.”
Riccardo Cascioli, president of the European Center of Studies on Population, Environment and Development, said: “For the umpteenth time a European institution pronounces itself on a topic – such as the family – which is the strict domain of each of the member states. It is obvious that human rights have become a pretext to affirm an ideology that not only has nothing to do with the good of the person, but that is even a source of violence against individuals, communities and peoples.”
Earlier the European Parliament had already called for action against European Union member states, specifically Poland and the Baltic states, that do not uphold rights of homosexuals.
In the United States the judiciary is at the helm in the fight against traditional values, while the legislature tends to defend them. Last Friday a court in Maryland ruled that the ban on same-sex marriages is unconstitutional. The judge said that the prohibition of same-sex marriages is a discrimination of gay couples which is based solely on their sexual orientation. She wrote in her ruling that “although traditions and values are important they cannot be given so much weight that they alone will justify a discriminatory statutory classification.” Though Friday’s ruling is an important victory for the gay lobby it does not mean (yet) that Maryland will become a marryland for gays. The Maryland attorney general has voiced plans for an appeal while politicians, including the Maryland governor, have announced that they intend to amend the constitution in order to reserve marriage to a union between one man and one wife. According to the doctrine of the European Parliament, this makes them into “homophobes.”
International Homosexualism its own political doctrine
Submitted by telder1 on Sun, 2006-01-22 20:42.
It has been plain for a long time now that homosexualism/moral-depravity-as-'freedom' is being pushed as its own political doctrine with its own self-defending vocabulary ('homophobia', etc...) on an equal footing with socialism, communism and "democracy", all supposed black boxes in which the population goes in one side and comes out the other supposedly 'better' and with 'more freedom' than if it hadn't gone in at all; all built on the foundation of the lie of free will.
The sodomite language is anti-Christ himself as a lens and agenda of non-creation, irrespective of regional or ethnic variations/specifics. Sodomy has become its own universal among socialist, communist, Islamics and democractics under the guise of 'more choice is better' and the lie that Secular is the answer to all of man's emotionally negative experiences: the non-religious 'answer' to the 'problems caused by competing religions'. (example: the U.S. governments response to Osama bin laden/Islam is anything and everything except overtly Christian...)
The only difference between liberals and conservatives these days is 'amount' of 'choice', not that choice/free will does not exist. They are all deceived that free will exists and cannot be avoided.
That's why even the 'conservatives' have no defense against an argument that tells them over and over: "You said there was choice --that choice not only existed, but that it was unavoidable --that it was intrinsic to being a human being, like having arms and legs. So what's wrong with more choice? You have said yourself that we can't escape choice. In order to tell me I can't do (a, b, and c...) you limit what you yourself say is impossible to avoid. You'd have to stop choice itself to stop me. And even if you suceeded, you only steal from yourself."
The 'Secular' as supposed 'Meta' is turning out to be a disease ridden cess pool and those within it are proud, indeed snobbish concerning their 'privledges' to kill their own children and 'have sex' that not only produces no children but promotes the very diseases they dread while saying they can't avoid it as they are supposedly divinely forced to 'use' their 'free' will and must do 'all possible freedoms'.
It is finally dawning on even the worst of the 'conservatives' that the eons old fight against the lie of free will isn't at all the fighting over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. Those who are deceived men have free will always devour themselves and all those around them even as their own speech searches through them for a way out. It is the political/societal consequences of the free will lie that even the blind cannot miss.
Mark 4:39 And awaking up he rebuked the wind, and said to the sea, Silence; be mute. And the wind fell, and there was a great calm.
Those who believe in the 'free' will of emergencies say anything to that emergency except "Silence; be mute." In their eyes, emergencies certainly are not living creatures and 'therefore and ergo' cannot have a mouth that can be silenced or ears to hear Truth silence that mouth.
The unconditionally elect who have been born again as real, literal new creation in Jesus Christ have already heard and know when Speaking to living emergencies:
Matthew 10:20 For ye are not the speakers, but the Spirit of your Father which speaks in you.
Daniel 7:2-4 Daniel spoke and said, I saw in my vision by night, and behold, the four winds of the heavens broke forth upon the great sea. And four great beasts came up from the sea, different one from another. The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings: I beheld till its wings were plucked; and it was lifted up from the earth, and made to stand upon two feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it.
In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen
and what are Saudi Arabia and Iran then?
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 2006-01-23 02:15.
If they think Poland is homophobic, what do they call Saudi Arabia and Iran?
Yup, they ignore them because its not safe to say anything bad about Islam, regardless of how homophobic it is. The EU just targets the ones who won't fight back and aren't actually even homophobic at all.
The EU parliament is gutless.