Gay Marriage Fight Is A ‘Lie’ To Destroy Marriage

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So it looks like in the news that there is at least one lesbian that thinks this.

http://www.theblaze....stroy-marriage/

She thinks that marriage as an intistution should not exist period.

I am not surprised and have heard that this is what the whole debate is really about. For those of you who think this is all about "equality" are you ready to change your minds? Lets discuss.

[Saints Alive]

That is one persons opinion. Despite my aversion to gay marriage, I don't believe that the majority of gays are seeking to destroy marriage. Not intentionally anyway.

[Darren10]

That is one persons opinion. Despite my aversion to gay marriage, I don't believe that the majority of gays are seeking to destroy marriage. Not intentionally anyway.

I agree but this is not so true with gay activists.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That is one persons opinion. Despite my aversion to gay marriage, I don't believe that the majority of gays are seeking to destroy marriage. Not intentionally anyway.

In the clip on the blaze she is giving a speech and you can hear the applause when she says what she says that marriage should not exist. I am not going to say that a majority believe this. But I think this shows that this is really what the push it is about. I know many people thet believe the lie. There are many people on both sides of the issue that are sucked in and really do think this is about equality. I would say that more than one person share this lady's ideas.

[thesometimesaint]

Given the divorce rate among heterosexuals maybe a fair number of those don't believe in marriage either.

[Glenn101]

Given the divorce rate among heterosexuals maybe a fair number of those don't believe in marriage either.

More like they believe in serial monogamy. What are the statistics on remarriage? Don't most people who get divorced remarry?

Glenn

[teddyaware]

That is one persons opinion. Despite my aversion to gay marriage, I don't believe that the majority of gays are seeking to destroy marriage. Not intentionally anyway.

By the sound of the gleeful and enthusiatic applause of the gathered crowd of writers (can we say influential people?) at this conference, it doesn't seem it's just one person's opinion. Given the adversary's goal to utterly destroy anything and everything that is good and ordained of God, one wonders if/when ssm gains legal acceptance throughout the world if it will come as a surprse to see a flurry of unforseen and unintended consequenses that will only further undermine and erode the moral pillars of our Judeo-Christian civilization?

[Damien the Leper]

Radio personality Tom Leykus says this often, "Do you know why divorce is so expensive? Because it's worth it!" This is coming from a heterosexual who is opposed to marriage and has more than a million listeners nationally. I disagree with his position. Marriage and monogamous committed relationships have been around long before religious idealism on the subject. The whole "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve" propaganda of the " Moral Majority" ignoramuses (Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Tim LaHaye, Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham) continues to fall to the wayside as a more humanistic approach toward the purpose of life, which is dignity, continues to rise and religious pluralism is divinely embraced.

[Darren10]

Given the divorce rate among heterosexuals maybe a fair number of those don't believe in marriage either.

The vast majority of those remarry and within a few years. But I don't think tha there's any argument that family has erodedseverely over the past few decades. In fact it is my position that gay arriage would not be nearly as popular as it is now were family strengthened instead of weakened in recent history.

[Darren10]

More like they believe in serial monogamy. What are the statistics on remarriage? Don't most people who get divorced remarry?

Glenn

Yes!!!

[thesometimesaint]

More like they believe in serial monogamy. What are the statistics on remarriage? Don't most people who get divorced remarry?

Glenn

The majority will remarry, but the outlook is even poorer for them. A larger majority of those re-marriages will fail also. Add in that the best predictor of a successful marriage is to look at their parents marriage.

[Darren10]

Though the key words "we wantot destroy families" are not present, here's a prime example of how gay activism does destroy the identity of the traditional family:

(AP) White House commends Jason Collins on coming out

WASHINGTON

The White House is commending NBA veteran Jason Collins for becoming the first active male player in the four major American professional sports to come out as gay.

White House spokesman Jay Carney called that decision courageous and says the White House supports Collins. He says he hopes the 34-year-old center's team will also offer support.

Carney says the White House views Collins' decision as another example of progress and evolution in the U.S. as Americans grow more accepting of gay rights and same-sex marriage. Last year, during his re-election campaign, Obama announced his support for gay marriage.

http://www.breitbart.../wire/DA5VAEB00

Acceptance of same sex marriage is increasing and seems to have become the standard more. Not only is there acceptance but not straight from the nation's top office a commendation for "courage" for a person living a homosexual lifestyle and foments "support" for the behavior. The White House does so in the context of increasing acceptance for same sex marriage.

[DH]

I have good friends who self-identify as Queer, and they don't believe in the institution of marriage. However, they are not trying to destroy marriage--they simply refuse to get married. They are a couple, and could get married even in this state, because one of them is a man and the other is a woman, but they choose not to.

I believe the vast majority of supporters of SSM actually support SSM, and have no interest in destroying marriage. What would be the point of destroying marriage if you don't believe in it? Nobody's forcing anybody to get married, after all!

[DH]

Though the key words "we wantot destroy families" are not present, here's a prime example of how gay activism does destroy the identity of the traditional family:

Acceptance of same sex marriage is increasing and seems to have become the standard more. Not only is there acceptance but not straight from the nation's top office a commendation for "courage" for a person living a homosexual lifestyle and foments "support" for the behavior. The White House does so in the context of increasing acceptance for same sex marriage.

In what way does acceptance of gay marriage "destroy" marriage? That doesn't make sense.

[BCSpace]

The creation of an alternative to valid God-authorized marriages, such as gay marriages, is indeed destructive. Doing the right thing is often hard so we've created all these excuses and alternatives (gay marriage, easy divorce, co-habitation, pre-marital sex, etc. etc.) to doing the right thing and have tried to justify them and enshrine them in law in a morally relativistic fashsion and we are reaping the whirlwind for it.

[Darren10]

In what way does acceptance of gay marriage "destroy" marriage? That doesn't make sense.

I hope you can see how you answered your own question. And beyond acceptng gay marriage, don't forget that via the White House, being gay, living a gay lifestyle is "corageous".

And don't forget to re-read BCSpace's comment.

[california boy]

The creation of an alternative to valid God-authorized marriages, such as gay marriages, is indeed destructive. Doing the right thing is often hard so we've created all these excuses and alternatives (gay marriage, easy divorce, co-habitation, pre-marital sex, etc. etc.) to doing the right thing and have tried to justify them and enshrine them in law in a morally relativistic fashsion and we are reaping the whirlwind for it.

I am still confused by your assertion. I fully support the institution of marriage. Even more, I fully support my children having a temple marriage. I also support SSM. I guess you could say I so support marriage, that as many people who want to participate in that institution should. Because to not support marriage for everyone, would mean you are supporting shacking up. Whether you are straight or gay, I just don't support non committal shacking up.

You have asserted that gay marriage is destructive. Can you explain to my why you think it is in the best interest of society to encourage gay couples to shack up rather than be in committed relationships?

[Darren10]

I am still confused by your assertion. I fully support the institution of marriage. Even more, I fully support my children having a temple marriage. I also support SSM.

Than what is marriage to you?

I guess you could say I so support marriage, that as many people who want to participate in that institution should.

That's not true and you know it.

Because to not support marriage for everyone, would mean you are supporting shacking up.

Not in the least.

Whether you are straight or gay, I just don't support non committal shacking up.

Gays living active gay lifestyles is just as moral to you as heterosexual living heterosexual lifestyles? There's no moral difference to you? How does that work with your desire for your children to be sealed in the temple?

You have asserted that gay marriage is destructive. Can you explain to my why you think it is in the best interest of society to encourage gay couples to shack up rather than be in committed relationships?

Who here is "encouraging" gays ot shack up? Last I heard the moral authority on sexuality is that it is between a man and woman married "legally and lawfully" and those who are homosexuals are not sinning so long as they do not act on their homosexual inclinations. How is any of this "encouraging" homosexuals to "shack up"?

[california boy]

Than what is marriage to you?

Exactly what the government says it is. Like it or not, 10% of the states define marriage that includes gay couples. More will be adopting marriage equality for all of it's citizens. You can say a lot of things against the gay community, but you can not say that gays are against marriage. They are fighting for marriage in every way they possibly can from the voting booth, to the judicial system and through the legislative branch. To try and make some case that gays are against marriage is ridiculous.

That's not true and you know it.

What is with you. Where did you get this idea that if you are gay you are against marriage? I am pretty offended by you telling me what I do and do not believe. Why do you assert that I do not support marriage? CFR where I have ever encourage someone to not marry.

Not in the least.

Do you believe gay couples have sex? If you did not allow straight couples to marry, do you think they would shack up together? By not allowing gay couples to marry, you are dictating to them a life either without sex or sex outside of marriage. You certainly must realize that not everyone shares your religious beliefs that celibacy is a good lifestyle choice. I doubt very much that you consider celibacy as a good choice for your life. I would guess that you are looking forward to marrying some day or have already made that commitment. Why would gay couples feel any different than you? Just because you are gay does not take away the desire to marry.

Gays living active gay lifestyles is just as moral to you as heterosexual living heterosexual lifestyles? There's no moral difference to you? How does that work with your desire for your children to be sealed in the temple?

My children are active in the church. I encourage their activity. Part of Mormon belief is that temple marriage is what they should strive for. I have nothing against the church. I was active in the church most of my life. It is certainly not a bad choice for how to live your life. What is there not to get? The choices I have made for my life are the ones I feel are best for me. If my children think that living in the gospel is the best choices for their lives, why would I not want them to follow that path?

Just because I am gay does not mean I have any animosity towards the church. I have never spoken ill of the church nor it's leaders. I may disagree with some of the churches policies, but the church certainly has the right to decide for itself what it's doctrine is

Who here is "encouraging" gays ot shack up? Last I heard the moral authority on sexuality is that it is between a man and woman married "legally and lawfully" and those who are homosexuals are not sinning so long as they do not act on their homosexual inclinations. How is any of this "encouraging" homosexuals to "shack up"?

I understand that you seem to want to force your religious beliefs onto others, but in fact your religious beliefs is forcing them to live without the blessing of marriage.

[Wanderer7]

The blessing of marriage.

If we assume that a blessing is anything received from God, then gay marriage cannot, by definition, be a blessing.

Regarding the destruction of marriage, these prophetic words are insightful:

"A society which permits anything will eventually lose everything! Therefore, recognized or not, the public has an enormous stake in private morality!"

Neal A. Maxwell

[Lightbearer]

It is ironic the gay marriage agenda, wanting the stamp of approval of the government... given that 30 plus years ago the hip politically correct so called "enlightened" among us said that marriage was nothing but a false manmade institution and that it was outdated and was just a legal document which should be ignored. Thus the birth of the free-love generation... now in our time instead of wanting to "shack-up" they want the "bogus" legal status! But the problem with it is that this abomination is born of the desire for acceptance from the mainstream a so-called legitimization of perversion. If love were the true motive, then why not follow the freelove movement of the 60's-70's? Why the need for legal recognition? To normalize the behavior? To get husband and wife economic benefits. But it is not the true reason, it is an in your face backlash, sort of a we have been called perverts long enough and we are going to destroy the whole system or make it null and void. It is a Satanic attack on morality and the sanctity of marriage. There is the appeal to the Civil Rights movement, the comparison of blacks not having the right to vote or to intergrate into society. But being black is not a moral issue. Being actively "gay" is! I am not talking about SSA, I am talking about a liftestyle, a chosen pathway. A lifestyle that denies the possiblity of normalcy that abandons all hope of change that insists that they must be enabled in their lusts. I compare it more to being an alcoholic, which while some may be predisposed to being alcoholics, the choice to drink is still a choice. It has been called an "illness" much like the stylish concept that insists that SSA is inborn, which denies the ability or even necessity to repent, to cleanse one's life.

As for forcing our religious beliefs on anyone, that is ludicrous, in fact those who advocate for SSM are trying to force their beliefs on the rest of us. They are the one's trying to change the definition of marriage, We cannot force anyone to abandon sin, but we do not have to tolerate it or approve of it.

[Stone holm]

Looks like we have a lot of people drinking conservative Kool Aid here. I don't buy into the conspiracy theory about gays being organized to destroy marriage, anymore than I believed the anti war demonstrators were out to destroy America in the 60's. I do think there is considerable fear and anxiety which has been stirred up and so we are see a lot of radical rot on both sides of this cultural tug of war.

[Nemesis]

Looks like we have a lot of people drinking conservative Kool Aid here. I don't buy into the conspiracy theory about gays being organized to destroy marriage, anymore than I believed the anti war demonstrators were out to destroy America in the 60's. I do think there is considerable fear and anxiety which has been stirred up and so we are see a lot of radical rot on both sides of this cultural tug of war.

You really need to stop with the extreme comparisons. Thread closed.

Nemesis