Homosexual Marriage Adoption And Its Probable Effect On Marriages Generally

[jkwilliams]

In part, I agree with you. The vast majority of gays do not wish to destroy marriage. Judging from their action, I suspect most of them haven't given marriage much if any mind, and those who have, their thinking is more along the lines of gaining government benefits rather than in solemnizing their relationships, otherwise there would have been more solemnized relationships prior to the move to legally mimic heterosexual relationships and involve the government more in the same-sex bedrooms.

 

However, it is important to distinguish between what the vast majority of sheep may intend or be thinking (or not), and where the relatively few influential shepherds may wish to led their unwitting flocks. The article in question, and those similar to it, I read as speaking more to the later than the former.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I think where you and I disagree is that you believe that the extremists cited in USU78's article represent the leadership of the "gay agenda." I don't agree, though it's pretty telling that you think the vast majority of gay couples who want to get married are unthinking "sheep" being deceived by evil people at the top of the movement. I've heard Evangelical ant-Mormons say exactly the same thing about members of the LDS church. I refuse to believe that the vast majority of gay people and Mormons are unwitting dupes. To believe that is to have a very low opinion of human beings.

[Stone holm]

Have seen very little evidence that gays have any intent to destroy marriage period.  That is, and always has been, a scare mongering tactic -- it has been arguments like that which have caused the anti-SSM activists to lose credibility.  Unfortunately, by going political with it, it has caused persons who happen to be members of religious groups whose leaders affiliate with groups spewing for such claims to lose credibility as well.

[Daniel2]

Dan'l, to whom I was responding, is a long-time poster with whom I have a long history on this site on these and similar issues. He doesn't need any help, and speculations (or out-and-out evidence) concerning true motivations behind the so-called marriage equality movement are or ought to be fair game. I don't expect the supporters to be any more honest than your typical Chicago Alderman. But I don't do anything but point out the ridiculousness of their positions and arguments. If you want to discuss the contents of the linked article, go right ahead.

That link certainly doesn't reflect the views of anyone that I know, nor any of the major pro-gay-rights organizations and numerous marriage equality fundraisers, campaigns, or initiatives I've interacted with (the Human Rights Campaign, Equality Utah, American Foundation for Equal Rights, Equality California).

It does remind me of this video, though....

Edited June 2, 2014 by Daniel2

[USU78]

The issue, my dear Dan'l, is whether there are forces in play bent on destruction.  As Pope Francis has pointed out and continues to point out, part of that destruction entails trivializing and destroying the best hope for children's success:  nuclear families.

 

Face it, our species' success as organisms depends upon each generation's adopting policies ensuring optimal conditions for the next generation's success.

 

If our narcissism and selfishness pushes for policies that aggrandize ourselves at the expense of those to whom we owe our greatest duty, then we embrace evil.

 

It's not really that complicated.

[Daniel2]

The issue, my dear Dan'l, is whether there are forces in play bent on destruction. As Pope Francis has pointed out and continues to point out, part of that destruction entails trivializing and destroying the best hope for children's success: nuclear families.

Face it, our species' success as organisms depends upon each generation's adopting policies ensuring optimal conditions for the next generation's success.

If our narcissism and selfishness pushes for policies that aggrandize ourselves at the expense of those to whom we owe our greatest duty, then we embrace evil.

It's not really that complicated.

You're right--it's not complicated.

Our species has already successful established itself as organisms. If anything, we're a little too successful for our own good.

The desire of gays and lesbians to marry, establish families, and protect themselves and their children is neither a force of destruction nor narcissism.

Edited June 3, 2014 by Daniel2

[USU78]

You're right--it's not complicated.

The desire of gays and lesbians to marry and establish and protect themselves and their children is neither a force of destruction or narcissism.

 

Of course, you must keep telling yourself that.

 

Yet I remember a time just a couple of years ago when you specifically eschewed and doubted the advisability of homosexual "marriage" . . . and told me I was a fool for fearing its coming anywhere but in outlier areas like MA.

Funny.

[wenglund]

I think where you and I disagree is that you believe that the extremists cited in USU78's article represent the leadership of the "gay agenda." I don't agree, though it's pretty telling that you think the vast majority of gay couples who want to get married are unthinking "sheep" being deceived by evil people at the top of the movement. I've heard Evangelical ant-Mormons say exactly the same thing about members of the LDS church. I refuse to believe that the vast majority of gay people and Mormons are unwitting dupes. To believe that is to have a very low opinion of human beings.

 

If the so-called "extremists" aren't in charge (in today's pop culture they aren't "extreme," but increasingly mainstream, though quite extreme by standards several decades ago), then what is to explain the fact that their strategies have been widely employed and many of their stated objectives have been successfully accomplished, with some of their other objectives closing in on fruition?  In a relatively few years (a little more than a quarter century), society has gone from generally viewing homosexuality as a disgusting and unhealthy behavior, to tolerating the behavior, to now embracing and celebrating and legally encouraging the behavior. Radical changes like that tend not to result from moderate leadership.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Daniel2]

Yet I remember a time just a couple of years ago when you specifically eschewed and doubted the advisability of homosexual "marriage" . . . and told me I was a fool for fearing its coming anywhere but in outlier areas like MA.

Funny.

That IS funny.

CFR, please.

Edited June 3, 2014 by Daniel2

[jkwilliams]

If the so-called "extremists" aren't in charge (in today's pop culture they aren't "extreme," but increasingly mainstream, though quite extreme by standards several decades ago), then what is to explain the fact that their strategies have been widely employed and many of their stated objectives have been successfully accomplished, with some of their other objectives closing in on fruition?  In a relatively few years (a little more than a quarter century), society has gone from generally viewing homosexuality as a disgusting and unhealthy behavior, to tolerating the behavior, to now embracing and celebrating and legally encouraging the behavior. Radical changes like that tend not to result from moderate leadership.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Tolerance isn't an extreme goal, Wade. Having the right to marry is also not an extreme goal. That you think they are extreme goals speaks volumes.

[Tiki]

None of you have considered that legalized same-sex marriage will allow same-sex ed classes in public schools, thus exposing your children and grandchildren to their recruitment efforts to indulge in this immorality, assuming of course the same-sex ed exposure doesn't compete with the efforts by Planned Parenthood to encourage your children and grandchildren to conceive outside of wedlock so PP can be paid to kill your unborn children or grandchildren. But I'm sure the kingdom of the Devil will find a way not to divide itself.

[california boy]

So let me see if I understand the thinking here.  First, let's deny gays the right to marry and do all that we possibly can to prevent them from having the same legal rights as the rest of America.  In fact, let's spend 40 million dollars doing that very thing.  Then let's condemn gays for not living in a committed relationship. And just to distort our position even more, let's compare gays that have never been allowed to marry with straight couples in a married relationship.  And just to finish off our point, let's throw in a few radical statements and call them the "real" reason why all gays want to marry.  And throw in the gay marriage goal is to destroy our families.  Oh and I forgot, recruit our children.  If you need more, why don't we throw in Satan as being the master planner for all of this happening.  

 

I see this as nothing more than those who are against gay marriage throwing up convoluted smear arguments to help them justify the injustice and inequality they want to oppress on American citizens that are not like them.  No mention of multiple sex partners straight couples often have.  No mention that if a straight couple gets married, they are on the road to following God and all is forgotten about their past promiscuity.  No mention that the only people singled out on earth that are COMMANDED to be celibate and NEVER marry for life are those that happen to be gay.  If somehow, as those deciding who is worthy of marriage and who is not are proposing became reality, only those who had never had multiple sex partners were allowed to marry, then this institution truely would disappear except for a small cult of followers.

 

The good news is gay marriage is going to happen. Those that throw up these kinds of arguments will long be forgotten in 5 years.  We have seen it before when others have been forbidden to marry.  It will happen again.  

[Storm Rider]

Cal, that is a dodge to what was quoted. Now if you are telling me that the individuals quoted are not representative of those that are directing this social experiment then I would like to know it.  Have those quoted been identified by the same movement as out on the rim and are not to be trusted or does their role remain one of respect?  These are questions that I don't know; I don't know any of the individuals, their accomplishments or positions. However, you and I both know and understand that this whole argument and media coverage is carefully orchestrated and those that step out of lines are immediately squashed.  There is a script to follow and everyone in the movement has their part to play just as everything from political parties, candidates, and other group that is attempting to protect its image and achieve its objectives.

 

You consistently attempt to paint gay lifestyle as not really different from heterosexual lifestyles....that two wrongs must make it right.  It does not make it right for anyone regardless of sexual preference. But attempting to state that gay men don't have significantly more partners than other groups is ....is something less than being truthful to be kind.  This is part of the script; we are just like you and we are loving partners.  That is not reality and yet there are exceptions.

 

I am willing to wait and see what really happens in the future.  Does the definition of a family become so distorted that there is no relationship with what has always been a family with a mom/dad/ and children; does marriage really just become passe because there is no value in it?  I don't have a lot of hope that society is on an upward swing of becoming better, but I could be wrong.

 

It would be my hope that people from all walks of life continue to have an ideal, to set an example, and to be sources of righteousness and holiness.

[USU78]

Our species has already successful established itself as organisms. If anything, we're a little too successful for our own good.

 

And there you have the crux of it:  IMNSHO, the anti-Family, anti-Nuclear-Family, anti-"Breeder," anti-tax-insentives-for-"Breeders" world view of which homophile advocacy is a part, at its core, fundamentally hates humanity and desires its destruction.

 

This is why it is evil.

 

And this is why you and I are and ever shall be enemies when it comes to such subjects.

 

I am gratified that you agree that the issues are quite simple and clear-cut.

Edited June 3, 2014 by USU78

[USU78]

That IS funny.

CFR, please.

 

Shall I eviscerate myself so you can view my viscera, or just merely run my quite clear memories of your mocking me for fearing the very thing we are seeing right now through a projector on yonder wall?

[USU78]

So let me see if I understand the thinking here.  First, let's deny gays the right to marry and do all that we possibly can to prevent them from having the same legal rights as the rest of America.  In fact, let's spend 40 million dollars doing that very thing.  Then let's condemn gays for not living in a committed relationship. And just to distort our position even more, let's compare gays that have never been allowed to marry with straight couples in a married relationship.  And just to finish off our point, let's throw in a few radical statements and call them the "real" reason why all gays want to marry.  And throw in the gay marriage goal is to destroy our families.  Oh and I forgot, recruit our children.  If you need more, why don't we throw in Satan as being the master planner for all of this happening.  

 

I see this as nothing more than those who are against gay marriage throwing up convoluted smear arguments to help them justify the injustice and inequality they want to oppress on American citizens that are not like them.  No mention of multiple sex partners straight couples often have.  No mention that if a straight couple gets married, they are on the road to following God and all is forgotten about their past promiscuity.  No mention that the only people singled out on earth that are COMMANDED to be celibate and NEVER marry for life are those that happen to be gay.  If somehow, as those deciding who is worthy of marriage and who is not are proposing became reality, only those who had never had multiple sex partners were allowed to marry, then this institution truely would disappear except for a small cult of followers.

 

The good news is gay marriage is going to happen. Those that throw up these kinds of arguments will long be forgotten in 5 years.  We have seen it before when others have been forbidden to marry.  It will happen again.  

 

So much more convenient for a group defined by its bad behavior to blame others for that bad behavior rather than address its ur causes in themselves.

[Gray]

And there you have the crux of it:  IMNSHO, the anti-Family, anti-Nuclear-Family, anti-"Breeder," anti-tax-insentives-for-"Breeders" world view of which homophile advocacy is a part, at its core, fundamentally hates humanity and desires its destruction.

 

This is why it is evil.

 

 

 

Once again I find myself face to face with Poe's law, and unsure how to proceed 

[Daniel2]

Shall I eviscerate myself so you can view my viscera, or just merely run my quite clear memories of your mocking me for fearing the very thing we are seeing right now through a projector on yonder wall?

Huh...? Do you need me to explain to you what a Call for References means?

No evisceration or hyperbole necessary. You claim I said certain things. Answering a CFR means you supply proof of such a claim.

That is all I am asking for. If I said what you claim I said, please provide a link or a quotation.

[california boy]

And there you have the crux of it:  IMNSHO, the anti-Family, anti-Nuclear-Family, anti-"Breeder," anti-tax-insentives-for-"Breeders" world view of which homophile advocacy is a part, at its core, fundamentally hates humanity and desires its destruction.

 

This is why it is evil.

 

And this is why you and I are and ever shall be enemies when it comes to such subjects.

 

I am gratified that you agree that the issues are quite simple and clear-cut.

Oh brother.  Do you really believe this crap?  Who is anti family in the gay community?  We all have a mother and a father. We have brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces, grandchildren anunts and uncles.  We all grew up in families.  Just because you are gay doesn't mean you are not part of a family any longer unless there is some serious shunning going on.

 

If you have this kind of anger issues, you really should seek some professional help to work through some of these issues.  Give me one reason why a gay person by being gay should be anti family?  I certainly did not get the memo.

[wenglund]

Tolerance isn't an extreme goal, Wade. Having the right to marry is also not an extreme goal. That you think they are extreme goals speaks volumes.

 

While tolerance may not be an extreme goal in this case (for more than three decades I have been in favor of getting the government our of the bedrooms of homosexuals and treating them civilly, while still condemning the perverse and destructive behavior), governmental promotion of deviant and unhealthy sexual behavior is extreme. That you don't think so, tells us just how deftly you have been duped by the extremists cultural shepherd (who are fast becoming mainstream from the proliferation of sheep willing to mindlessly follow them).

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Oh brother.  Do you really believe this crap?  Who is anti family in the gay community?  We all have a mother and a father. We have brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces, grandchildren anunts and uncles.  We all grew up in families.  Just because you are gay doesn't mean you are not part of a family any longer unless there is some serious shunning going on.

 

If you have this kind of anger issues, you really should seek some professional help to work through some of these issues.  Give me one reason why a gay person by being gay should be anti family?  I certainly did not get the memo.

 

You need to take up the alleged anger issue with many of your fellow gay activist who have publicly reviled the traditional family and called for its eradication--and this even though they all had fathers and mothers and grew up in "families." I posted evidence of this in my blog article on Marriage in Crisis. Here is an excerpt:

 

Be that as it may, the decline and potential collapse of traditional marriage and family through same-sex marriage and other cultural trends, isn't entirely accidental, but was set as a goal well in advance by homosexual advocates and others, and strategically planned and executed since then. For example, various gay manifestos and agendas have called for the elimination or radical altering of the traditional family (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), lesbian feminist and others have "regarded the institution as oppressive" and in need of change or elimination (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), and certain prominent figures in the gay movement have admitted to being against "marriage"--gay or otherwise (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)--which may account for why so few homosexuals choose to legally marry where permitted (see above), though some homosexuals support the idea of civil unions rather than marriage (see HERE and HERE). And, there are those homosexuals who see marriage as conflicting with sexual liberties (see HERE), or who regret the focus on gay marriage (see HERE and HERE and HERE), and who even intimate that same-sex marriage was designed to destroy or radically alter traditional marriage (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), if not also to legitimize homosexual behaviors (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE).

 

"Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine: ' ...to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution...The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake--and one that would perhaps benefit all of society--is to transform the notion of family entirely."  "Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.'" (Quoted HERE)

 

Lesbian journalist, Marsha Gesson, admits: “It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. … [F]ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie....The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago." (Quoted HERE)

 

Mary Rice Hasson notes: "The truth is that the gay experience, dressed in the language of heterosexual normalcy, bears little resemblance to traditional marriage relationships. For some researchers, that’s exactly the point. They believe that gay relationships herald a long-overdue deconstruction of the meaning of 'marriage,' for gays and straights alike, away from the notion of sexual exclusivity and towards emotional bonding and 'open; sexual coupling, or tripling, or whatever..."(See HERE)

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jkwilliams]

While tolerance may not be an extreme goal in this case (for more than three decades I have been in favor of getting the government our of the bedrooms of homosexuals and treating them civilly, while still condemning the perverse and destructive behavior), governmental promotion of deviant and unhealthy sexual behavior is extreme. That you don't think so, tells us just how deftly you have been duped by the extremists cultural shepherd (who are fast becoming mainstream from the proliferation of sheep willing to mindlessly follow them).

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I guess I don't see the government promoting any behavior other than long-term commitment, which I think is a positive thing. It's not as if people are going to stop having sex if they can't get married.

 

If that makes me a mindless dupe of a sheep in your mind, I can't help that.

 

[thesometimesaint]

I think there is a difference between being anti-homosexuality and being against the individual homosexual.

[Tacenda]

You need to take up the alleged anger issue with many of your fellow gay activist who have publicly reviled the traditional family and called for its eradication--and this even though they all had fathers and mothers and grew up in "families." I posted evidence of this in my blog article on Marriage in Crisis. Here is an excerpt:

 

Be that as it may, the decline and potential collapse of traditional marriage and family through same-sex marriage and other cultural trends, isn't entirely accidental, but was set as a goal well in advance by homosexual advocates and others, and strategically planned and executed since then. For example, various gay manifestos and agendas have called for the elimination or radical altering of the traditional family (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), lesbian feminist and others have "regarded the institution as oppressive" and in need of change or elimination (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), and certain prominent figures in the gay movement have admitted to being against "marriage"--gay or otherwise (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE)--which may account for why so few homosexuals choose to legally marry where permitted (see above), though some homosexuals support the idea of civil unions rather than marriage (see HERE and HERE). And, there are those homosexuals who see marriage as conflicting with sexual liberties (see HERE), or who regret the focus on gay marriage (see HERE and HERE and HERE), and who even intimate that same-sex marriage was designed to destroy or radically alter traditional marriage (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE), if not also to legitimize homosexual behaviors (see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE).

 

"Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine: ' ...to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution...The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake--and one that would perhaps benefit all of society--is to transform the notion of family entirely."  "Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.'" (Quoted HERE)

 

Lesbian journalist, Marsha Gesson, admits: “It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. … [F]ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie....The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago." (Quoted HERE)

 

Mary Rice Hasson notes: "The truth is that the gay experience, dressed in the language of heterosexual normalcy, bears little resemblance to traditional marriage relationships. For some researchers, that’s exactly the point. They believe that gay relationships herald a long-overdue deconstruction of the meaning of 'marriage,' for gays and straights alike, away from the notion of sexual exclusivity and towards emotional bonding and 'open; sexual coupling, or tripling, or whatever..."(See HERE)

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Are you USU78?  Can he answer for himself? 

[Anijen]

I am not current on the debate of accepting homosexuality or not in any form. My heart and mind tell me that keeping the government out of our homes and bedrooms is a correct path. A path I believe is sanctioned in scripture and by our Prophets. We do not need a governing body to tell us how and what way to think, even if our thoughts do not align with others. It seems to me that those who oppose SSM are ridiculed terribly beyond appropriate bounds such as trying to get someone fired because their 1st amendment rights do no coincide with someone else civil rights. I am labeled a hater or bigot for the small reason of disagreeing with a view point. It is a new battlefield with new types of weaponry. If I do not want to bake a cake for a person whom I disagree with, and I should not be forced to do so (and I add I still would not bake that cake and rather take the punishment, rather than someone tell me how I should think).

 

Sin has become acceptable and virtue has become obsolete, archaic and prudish. What a shame.

[wenglund]

I guess I don't see the government promoting any behavior other than long-term commitment, which I think is a positive thing. It's not as if people are going to stop having sex if they can't get married.

 

If that makes me a mindless dupe of a sheep in your mind, I can't help that.

 

If government promotion on this issue were merely of "long-term commitment" as you suggest, then it would be called "friendship" rather than "marriage"--which is legally considered as consummated through, and has as its core essence, sex. 

 

But, given the recent effort to ban the public use of the word "homosexual," precisely because it underscores the reality that sex is at the core of homosexual relationships, which underscoring many view as a potential impediment to advancing the cause, and so they wish instead to promote the use of de-sexualized words, or words that obscure the core sexuality of homosexual relationships, such as "gay," then it is not surprising to see you following these cultural shepherds with your bah-ing last post.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-