Gingrich Slides Toward Sodom - Tells GOP To Back Same-Sex "Marriage"


I told you it wouldn't be far behind. Republican Newt Gingrich has come out of the closet, so to speak, and declared that conservatives are going to have to accept homosexual "marriage." He said this is due to the fact that three states voted to allow same sex "marriage" and he expects more to do it in the future. Gingrich also encouraged the GOP to "accommodate and deal with the reality." Noticeably missing was any of the same talk about marijuana.

Gingrich, a man who has had three wives and committed adultery with two of the wives, said that he didn't expect the issue to become what it has, which in my opinion, is not that loud, but rather just has gotten media attention to promote and agenda. However, Gingrich said he could accept the difference between a "marriage in a church from a legal document issued by the state," according to the Huffington Post.

There are several problems with Gingrich's line of reasoning. First, many of these ceremonies between same sex couples will be taking place in places referred to as churches, though if such is taking place it definitely would not fall under the biblical definition of a church. Second, the issue is redefining a term, not an issue of "marriage equality," which is a catch phrase used as though homosexual unions would be considered "equal to" heterosexual unions. They are not. I have previously demonstrated that the issue is not just a change in law, but a complete redefining of the English word "marriage." I highly recommend the two minute version of Alan Keyes debating Barack Obama on the issue and pointing out the logic of the issue of marriage as being between a male and a female, not members of the same sex.

In addition, the Scriptures are clear. In the beginning God said,

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

This was not to take place between members of the same sex, but those of the opposite sex.

Rest assured, next the militant homosexuals will be pushing for legal action against churches that won't perform weddings for them. They are already taking legal action against businesses and photographers who won't work with them because of their religious convictions.

Gingrich said the GOP will need to accept that same sex "marriage" “is in every family, it is in every community.” But he doesn't give us a reason for accepting it. Because it is in every community or family is not a reason to embrace it. All kinds of sin prevails in families and communities, should we be those who just accept it? Do we embrace pride, anger, name calling, gossip, slander, promiscuity, adultery, lying, stealing and a whole host of things as acceptable merely because we all have members of our family or community that engage in them? I think not. This is merely a poor argument.

"The momentum is clearly now in the direction in finding some way to... accommodate and deal with reality,” he said. “And the reality is going to be that in a number of American states — and it will be more after 2014 — gay relationships will be legal, period.”

But they won't be right Mr. Gingrich. Making rape legal wouldn't make it right. So this is just like a RINO, in my opinion. When there seems to be a huge move in a direction, even if it's the wrong direction, the politicians get on the wave and ride it. He doesn't stand up for what is right. To him, it's political suicide.

The reality is the homosexuals can run off and have whatever ceremony they want and call it whatever they will, but that doesn't make it valid, right or legal. However, demanding the State recognize it as equal to biblical, traditional marriage is immoral and twisted. Woe to those like Mr. Gingrich who are now getting on the bandwagon and succombing to the left's terms and ideology.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

Print Friendly





Comments

comments

  • http://twitter.com/EmmJaa M.J. (EmmJaa)

    Apparently Mr. Gingrich is willing to compromise ‘the family,’ the backbone of every culture. Our forefathers established a government that is subject to the people, who then have a duty and responsibility to reign in government that has ceased to serve our purpose. Mr. Gingrich’s seems to be suggesting that in order to get a government that is somewhat tolerable, we must be willing to compromise our principles and mislead future generations with a misguided vision of sexuality and morality.

    It is time to listen to the wisdom of George Washington and other wise leaders that warned against the risks associated with political parties. We don’t need to apologize for seeking to maintain the ‘natural law’ and the constitution. Because marriage serves society, the union is recognized by the federal/state governments, but they didn’t create the union. Marriage was instituted by God and cannot be redefined.

    In contrast, homosexuality has been tried by various cultures through the ages, and has been found wanting. Conjugal unions are intended to create or build up, not tear down and destroy. Endorsing a life style with a known high risk for chronic depression, suicidal ideation and severe health problems associated with gastrointestinal problems and AIDS isn’t kind or enlightened? When misguided politicians disregard the basic and necessary components to maintain a mentally and physically healthy society, they have ceased to function as a leader.

    Mr. Gingrich’s suggestion is a perfect example of the tail wagging the dog.

  • http://twitter.com/EmmJaa M.J. (EmmJaa)

    Apparently Mr.
    Gingrich is willing to compromise ‘the family,’ the backbone of every culture. Our forefathers established a government that
    is subject to the people, who then have a duty and responsibility to reign in
    government that has ceased to serve our purpose. Mr. Gingrich’s seems to be suggesting that in
    order to get a government that is somewhat tolerable, we must be willing to compromise
    our principles and mislead future generations with a misguided vision of sexuality,
    morality and chastity.

    It is time to listen
    to the wisdom of George Washington and other wise leaders that warned against
    the risks associated with political parties.
    We don’t need to apologize for seeking to maintain the ‘natural law’ and
    the constitution. Because marriage serves society, the union is
    recognized by the federal/state governments, but they didn’t create the union. Marriage
    was instituted by God and cannot be redefined.

    To the contrary, homosexuality
    has been tried by various cultures through the ages, and has been found wanting. Conjugal unions are intended to create or
    build up, not tear down and destroy. Endorsing a life style with a known high risk
    for chronic depression, suicidal ideation and severe health problems associated
    with gastrointestinal problems and AIDS isn’t kind or enlightened? When misguided
    politicians disregard the basic and necessary components to maintain a mentally
    and physically healthy society, they have ceased to function as a leader.

    Mr. Gingrich’s suggestionis a perfect example of the tail wagging the dog.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003457282985 Mike Slaney

    Now you understand why Christians can't depend on the politicians! They are open graves full of death.

  • Simon Jester

    We have bigger and more important things to worry about than gays wanting to bugger each other while wearing wedding rings.

    The Senate traitors passed the NDAA, which allows for INDEFINITE detention of American citizens. And the Traitor in Chief is going to sign it into law.

    That's the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments going down the drain.

    This is an impeachable offense and a call to arms.

  • Bob Williams

    I think that Newt has strapped on his knee pads on more than one occasion.

  • 2chestnuts

    Mr. Gingrich, because you say it is so, you expect me to fall in line and accept your beaureaucratic, elitelist, weak-kneed BS. And you elitests actually believe you have the answers for us poor non-thinking citizens. NO I will NOT accept your flip-flop meaningless homosexual propaganda. You have been around way to long and need to take a vacation and let people that are in touch with average Americans take charge and lead us out of the quagmire we are in. Thank God you did not win the presidency!

  • pcsrocky

    What would happen if we applied the same logic used for Homosexual "marriage" to say bullying? It is widely practiced and accepted, so why is it wrong? BEFORE you get on my case, I am against bullying for the same reasons that I am against homosexual "marriage", it is wrong!!!! The bible verse, once used for all church weddings, as stated in the article, says a man shall leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife. How does that work for a homosexual "marraige"? Why is it that the liberal side can choose what laws or social strictures they feel should be abided by? Why is it that only their feelings and considerations are valid?

  • BDS

    Why not?

    Your President and the so called ultra Constitutional Conservative
    claiming to be a Christian Ron Paul supports and sides with the
    sodomites, so why not the neutered one?

    The problem here is that Neut changed from being a Protestant and became
    a Catholic knowing full well what the Catholic church's stand is
    against this sin right? Or is it?

    So what's next you ask and why did he say this?

    Answer from the Catholic Church:

    "The Call to Chastity

    The modern arguments in favor of homosexuality have thus been
    insufficient to overcome the evidence that homosexual behavior is
    against divine and natural law, as the Bible and the Church, as well as
    the wider circle of Jewish and Christian (not to mention Muslim)
    writers, have always held.

    The Catholic Church thus teaches: "Basing itself on sacred Scripture,
    which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition
    has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.

    They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the
    gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357).

    However, the Church also acknowledges that "[homosexuality’s] psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.

    The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not
    negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are
    called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s cross the difficulties that they may encounter from their condition."

    Church of St. John the Baptist
    210 W. 31st St., New York, NY 10001

    (212) 268–1010
    Web: http://couragerc.net

    So there you have it.

    Their OK and we're OK as long as we remember that the sodomite is to be "accepted" and we "must respect" and have "compassion and sensitivity" for them. So allowing this sin is just plain OK folks.

    And that's pretty much it in a nutshell.

    BDS

    • http://twitter.com/EmmJaa M.J. (EmmJaa)

      BDS, I thank you for your lengthy explanation of social justice, but you are a little bit off track. When someone you love goes off track, you don't stop loving them,you don't think less of them and you don't need to disrespect them, but neither do you ignore them. You do all you can to help them get on track. In this case part of what you can do is avoid all discrimination while building and maintaining a strong culture that values natural law.

  • Jo Ann

    I am opposed to same sex marriage...if you ever read the Bible, you will find it...particularly in the Old Testament. Then in the New Testament, Paul also addresses the issue. I am not a "gay basher". I have friends who are gay. It is the marriage part I have trouble with accepting.

  • PArevolutionary

    another traitor...first Ron Paul backs down on supporting the NRAs school security proposal and now good old Newt pushes the GOP to back down on opposing the union of gays,he is showing his true colors...always thought he was a snake,just another rino!!!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/harry.reyhing Harry Reyhing

    Great article.Gingrich is a coward.When the going gets tough he sells out his "catholic church" and goes for the popular politically correct position.Thank God there are millions of real catholic christians out there who are willing to take a stand for Gods word and laws and never sell out.We must fight and never give an inch because the next step will be to try to force chuches to perform this abomination.In that case true churches would rather close down and Christians will be meeting again in the catacombs.Thank god for Rick Santorum and others who stick with their moral compass no matter what

  • lee1233

    Perverted behavior under the name of "gay marriage" is abnormal behavior that is in direct conflict with NATURAL LAW. If such behavior is practiced in its pure form the net results will be self extermination of the human race in one single generation. No way does homosexual behavior conform to NATURAL LAW. Newt needs to retire from the public arena. His time in the sun is past.lee1233

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-J-Marsalek/100000786255701 Michael J. Marsalek

    Well - - - Most people don't find the marriage of one man to more than one woman or one woman to more than one man as morally and spiritually offensive as the marriage of same sex couples. Most right thinking people are tollerant of gay and lesbian lifestyles but are strongly opposed to any arragement that degrades traditional marriage.

  • G W

    This closet queen needs to just go away. He is a has been.

  • don

    mr gringrich is just showing what we already knew. he not conserative an not really a repulican. thats why he fails in his runs for president.you have but to liston when this man is not running for pres.