"Gay 'marriage' doesnt hurt society"

[CrimsonThorn]

But you are speaking against your argument. If divorice rates are high, if couples do not marry what is the reason? Because society decided to tamper with traditional man/woman marriage. The divorce rates and out of wedlock births are supported by a Leftist ideology of big government taking the place of the spouse and family. It is simply a power grab and sadly has been quite effective especially in the black community.

Now you suggest we tamper further with marriage instead of supporting what works?

Lisa

No im saying by tampering with it (no strings attached/divorce/cohab/contraception), we opened the gates to gay marriage (“most gays take marriage more serious than most heteros”), which will further open the gate to more perversions.

And by seeing how many people these days believe in traditional marriage (which isnt that many in the big pic), gay or straight, we can see how all these things have taken a toll on it and how it has indeed been very much attacked.

 

[edwest2]

Thank you and to Edwest as well for so clearly and cogently explaining the real agenda. It is not about allowing people to “marry whom they love” but a desire to re-order society in a perverse and perverted way.

The very same reasoning was used for liberalizing divorce laws, that it was “better for children not to live with parents who are no longer in love” as if there was nothing more than “feeeeeelingsssss” involved. It is a desire to stay in the juvenile, “it’s all about me” world of the perpetual adolescent who is a slave to his impulses and desires. As a result marriages are undone with little thought to the impact, couples don’t bother to marry before having children, and the government becomes the spouse or the parent. Marx would be proud!

As to the latest attempt to destroy societal norms and structure, Edwest noted the essential thing for this group is that they receive society’s approval of their particular sexual practices. Whether this “other arrangement” benefits those involved, society or children is irrelevant. It’s all about “the big O” and how to achieve with society’s blessing.
And if you don’t bless us, we’ll sue you!

Lisa

Hi Lisa,

In the 1980s, as No-Fault Divorce completed its sweep across the country as the “new” way to handle divorce, the official explanation was: “Divorce is creating a huge backlog of court cases and clogging up court dockets. In the past (as in, last week), divorce was complicated by lengthy, expensive and - most importantly - time consuming legal battles. For example, one or both of the about to be former spouses would attempt to conceal assets which led to hiring detectives, tracking down money, etc. This law would free up court dockets.”

It was a bad idea then. Why? Because in the 1980s, I opened the classifieds to one of the major Detroit newspapers and saw a number of similar ads: “No kids? $75 and you’re out. Call 800-DIVORCE.”

So much for the sanctity of marriage, religious or not. That was a sick, twisted decision that helped only one group - lawyers. And recently, in Detroit, I drove passed a billboard that showed a young black woman filling out some papers on a desk. The text on the billboard? “Do it yourself divorce,” followed by contact information.

It all boils down to this Hippie saying that dates from the 1970s:

“Hey man. If it feels good, do it.”

Instead of 10 commandments, they just needed one. So, hey everybody! Gay? Straight? Bi? Transgendered? Something else? If it it FEELS GOOD - DO IT !!! Heck, try a little bit of everything if you feel like it, with anybody!!

And marriage? As my Hippie friend told me in the 1970s. “I don’t need no piece uh paper tah live with my old lady.” He referred to fornication as “performing natural acts.” Of course, he had the regulation length hair, the correct dress and manner of speech and smoked dope - as required.

He was, like his other Hippie kin, a walking bad example to all.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Faithdancer]

Hi Lisa,

In the 1980s, as No-Fault Divorce completed its sweep across the country as the “new” way to handle divorce, the official explanation was: “Divorce is creating a huge backlog of court cases and clogging up court dockets. In the past (as in, last week), divorce was complicated by lengthy, expensive and - most importantly - time consuming legal battles. For example, one or both of the about to be former spouses would attempt to conceal assets which led to hiring detectives, tracking down money, etc. This law would free up court dockets.”

It was a bad idea then. Why? Because in the 1980s, I opened the classifieds to one of the major Detroit newspapers and saw a number of similar ads: “No kids? $75 and you’re out. Call 800-DIVORCE.”

So much for the sanctity of marriage, religious or not. That was a sick, twisted decision that helped only one group - lawyers. And recently, in Detroit, I drove passed a billboard that showed a young black woman filling out some papers on a desk. The text on the billboard? “Do it yourself divorce,” followed by contact information.

It all boils down to this Hippie saying that dates from the 1970s:

“Hey man. If it feels good, do it.”

Instead of 10 commandments, they just needed one. So, hey everybody! Gay? Straight? Bi? Transgendered? Something else? If it it FEELS GOOD - DO IT !!! Heck, try a little bit of everything if you feel like it, with anybody!!

And marriage? As my Hippie friend told me in the 1970s. “I don’t need no piece uh paper tah live with my old lady.” He referred to fornication as “performing natural acts.” Of course, he had the regulation length hair, the correct dress and manner of speech and smoked dope - as required.

He was, like his other Hippie kin, a walking bad example to all.

Peace,
Ed

And later in their lives, some of these became Catholic reverts/converts and sought to remake the Church in their own image, using Vatican II as a cover. “In the spirit of” Vatican II, as it were. Vatican II gets blamed for the hippie-dippie abuses which came after, but were never intended.

Well, at least patchouli oil never made it into the accoutrements of the liturgy…Deo gratias!

 

[edwest2]

No im saying by tampering with it (no strings attached/divorce/cohab/contraception), we opened the gates to gay marriage (“most gays take marriage more serious than most heteros”), which will further open the gate to more perversions.

And by seeing how many people these days believe in traditional marriage (which isnt that many in the big pic), gay or straight, we can see how all these things have taken a toll on it and how it has indeed been very much attacked.

Who is this “WE”? Get the facts: there is no one to one relationship with gay marriage and heterosexual marriage. WE are not - at least some of us - not gay activists. I can’t think of anyone who saw this coming. They were too busy messing up their own lives by ignoring Church teaching. I sincerely doubt that in their own minds they thought what they did/are doing would lead to this.

nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=0

nytimes.com/2003/08/31/world/now-free-to-marry-canada-s-gays-say-do-i.html

We do need a balanced and true picture of the situation.

Peace,
Ed

 

[CrimsonThorn]

Who is this “WE”? Get the facts: there is no one to one relationship with gay marriage and heterosexual marriage. WE are not - at least some us - not gay activists. I can’t think of anyone who saw this coming. They were too busy messing up their own lives by ignoring Church teaching. I sincerely doubt that in their own minds they thought what they did/are doing would lead to this.

nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=0

nytimes.com/2003/08/31/world/now-free-to-marry-canada-s-gays-say-do-i.html

We do need a balanced and true picture of the situation.

Peace,
Ed

“We” as in society. Obviously I or you or other Catholics didnt. And maybe no one saw it coming, but we see it now. And we should see history repeating itself if society continues on this same path.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

That is way too simplistic. There are still a substantial number of married people who are staying together. SSM is a brand new issue.

Peace,
Ed

But the numbers who believe in traditonal marriage have gone down. Most people think it makes “more sense” to cohabitate than to marry. These ideas have hurt traditional marriage amd have paved the way.

 

[Faithdancer]

Who is this “WE”? Get the facts: there is no one to one relationship with gay marriage and heterosexual marriage. WE are not - at least some us - not gay activists. I can’t think of anyone who saw this coming. They were too busy messing up their own lives by ignoring Church teaching. I sincerely doubt that in their own minds they thought what they did/are doing would lead to this.

nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=0

nytimes.com/2003/08/31/world/now-free-to-marry-canada-s-gays-say-do-i.html

We do need a balanced and true picture of the situation.

Peace,
Ed

The 2010 editorial you linked to reaches the most absurdly biased conclusions imaginable. Same sex “marriage” is healthy and superior, especially when the terms of the “marriage” allow for extra-“marital” sexual activity.

 

[Faithdancer]

But you are speaking against your argument. If divorice rates are high, if couples do not marry what is the reason? Because society decided to tamper with traditional man/woman marriage. The divorce rates and out of wedlock births are supported by a Leftist ideology of big government taking the place of the spouse and family. It is simply a power grab and sadly has been quite effective especially in the black community.

Now you suggest we tamper further with marriage instead of supporting what works?

Lisa

Yes, and this was exactly the goal of Trotsky.

 

[edwest2]

And later in their lives, some of these became Catholic reverts/converts and sought to remake the Church in their own image, using Vatican II as a cover. “In the spirit of” Vatican II, as it were. Vatican II gets blamed for the hippie-dippie abuses which came after, but were never intended.

Well, at least patchouli oil never made it into the accoutrements of the liturgy…Deo gratias!

That was and is the cover story, but so anxious were the dissidents inside and outside the Church about allowing married priests and a loosening of restrictions on artificial birth control, that Pope Paul VI wisely issued Humanae Vitae in 1968 and it was THE BOMB, creating a reaction that was unprecedented in the history of the Church.

“Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.” Source: regnum christi

Vatican II was good. THIS was HORRIBLE! It threatened birth control pill manufacturers, it threatened the Sex without love Revolution. WE CAN"T HAVE CATHOLIC MEN AND WOMEN LISTENING TO THE POPE !!!" We’ve got to replace religion - the supoosed opiate of the masses - with (A) real opiates, and (B) the new opium dens - Adult Bookstores. Why? To create the planned addictions that followed.

Pope Paul VI warned Catholics what would happen if his words were not heeded. He was right. We’re living through it.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

The 2010 editorial you linked to reaches the most absurdly biased conclusions imaginable. Same sex “marriage” is healthy and superior, especially when the terms of the “marriage” allow for extra-“marital” sexual activity.

I had the same reaction. And the commitment is what, exactly?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Faithdancer]

I may have spoken too soon about patchouli oil…apparently it’s making a bit of a comeback in some circles.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Some male homosexuals are monogamous. I think it’s only about 40/45%, though. I know that the rate of monogamy is much higher amongst lesbians.

If I’m honest, I wouldn’t mind if gay marriage was accepted just so I could no longer hear about it on the news. It’s all getting slightly tedious now.

 

[marymary1975]

Actually, the issue does not hurt society at all. However, it hurts what you think society should be. And that is a world of difference. Naturally, you will have to keep the issue alive, to fight for what you think is “right”. The truth is that even a sizable percenatge of catholics disagrees with you. You should be aware that the fight is already lost, (just remember the fight against divorce) and all you will achieve is to further marginalize your position. Just think about it.

With regard to the fight against divorce, if you remember back in the day when divorce was illegal and the fight for the legalization of divorce, when the Church stance was against divorce and when the Church said that divorce would affect chidlren, all the psychologist of the USA came out and a million studies made from Harvard to Oxford came out saying that divorce was the most amazing thing in the world, that the Church was wrong that divorce actually benefits children, that marriage traumatizes children, that children are happier when parent are divorced, etc. and then, people ate those excuses and divorce became legal. Now many years later, they figured out divorce traumatizes kids and that the Church was right about divorce and we have a whole generation of children screwed up thanks to divorce. Same thing is happing with gay marriage: practically the same arguments given for gay marraige are the ones that were given back in the day for divorce and the reason why the catholics that support gay marriage are doing it is precisely because they, just like with the divorce issue, are eating those arguments. Was the fight against divorce lost? I don’t think so for the simple reason that today it has been proven that the Church was right about divorce, the thing is that NOBODY wants to talk about it because it shows that in the end, the Church was right, I can bet you anything that in 30 years we are going to see the same thing that happened with divorce happening to gay marriage: a whole generation of kids screwed up thanks to gay marriage.

 

[marymary1975]

That is way too simplistic. There are still a substantial number of married people who are staying together. SSM is a brand new issue.

Peace,
Ed

SSM is not a brand new issue in the Scandinavian countries and that is what he is refering too. SSM has been legal for a long time in the Scandinavian countries and the consequences of the legalization of SSM in the whole Scandinavian countries have been a major decline in heterosexual marriage and high rates of single motherhood to the point that only about 30% of children born there are born to parents in a relationship.

 

[tobbias88]

Gay marriage is living in a permanent state of sodomy or buggery. Why do we use weasel words to disguise this extraordinarily bizarre activity? If animals did this we would be amazed and assume something was fundamentally wrong.

This activity has been condemned in all societies in all ages - Christian, Jewish, pagan, Muslim,
primitives. Sex was not meant for self-gratification but rather the procreation and continuation of the species. Two men having sex will not make a child…so what is the point of it? All tribes/nations understood this ( as do animals) so it was shunned and prohibited.
Seems we have totally lost the plot… rather sad but other species are not so stupid or wilful.

 

[marymary1975]

It’s really easy and convenient argue against the destruction of society. But same-sex marriage is not the destruction of society. I don’t think anyone is asking to end opposite sex marriages and replace them with same-sex marriages. I don’t see how churches will be shut down once two men get a marriage license at a courthouse. Actually how many same-sex marriages does it take to destroy society in your example? We have them in the US now. When do we reach critical mass? Do uniformed agents break up a family when two women kiss in wedding dresses?

Nobody is asking to replace heterosexual marriage with SSM because that would be TOO OBVIOUS! If they were to do that people would enrage and be protesting against that so they know that they can’t say that. Instead what they are trying to do is brainwash people and in very low key way try to shove gay marriage through people’s throat and that is the problem here, what they are trying to do is shoving homosexuality through people’s throat, it is been forced upon people in a very subtle way and most people don’t even see it.

You don’t think that gay marriages are going to destroy society, then explain to me why they are publishing biased studies saying that lesbians are better mothers than heterosexual people? Why there are so many studies now saying that gay relationships are more stable and better than heterosexual relationships? Why if the percentage of homosexuality is about 4% do you have to change laws to force the 96% to live by the law of the 4% (I am very specifically talking about MA where they were trying to eliminate the usage of the words mother and father), why is that homosexuality has to be taught in public school, and even worst without the consent of the parents?, and if you look at the beginning of this thread there is a full of lawsuits that were filed against people just because they didn’t agree with gay marriage. All this gives you the answer, what they are doing is working in a subtle way to replace heterosexual marriage with homosexuality while denying it.

 

[sw85]

Or so says my uncle.

What I explained was that gay marriage hurts society in many ways, being:

-Children being taught “gay rights” in public school (why not teach them religious freedom in general too then?)

-Future generations growing up with the idea that marriage can be anything, opening the gates to further future problems

-The imposing of the gay agenda onto Christians and the forcing of us to conform to their definition

-Only adds to the the further underpopulation of the world (hes a scientist and he insists that the earth is already overpopulated)

-The further desensitization and degradation of societys mentalities, whether gay or straight since its more than just gays who support gay marriage

Am I leaving anything out? And correct me if Im wrong at all too. Thanks.

All that sounds kind of consequentialist. We should not oppose homosexuality because it’s bad for X, but because it’s bad, period. That is to say, the measure of a society’s health just is, in part, how integrated it is sexually.

yes, it often has bad consequences, but that’s just the nature of sin. It’s an act of spiritual self-harm. When you kill yourself, well, you die. But the badness of dying is secondary to the evilness of suicide.

 

[edwest2]

With regard to the fight against divorce, if you remember back in the day when divorce was illegal and the fight for the legalization of divorce, when the Church stance was against divorce and when the Church said that divorce would affect chidlren, all the psychologist of the USA came out and a million studies made from Harvard to Oxford came out saying that divorce was the most amazing thing in the world, that the Church was wrong that divorce actually benefits children, that marriage traumatizes children, that children are happier when parent are divorced, etc. and then, people ate those excuses and divorce became legal. Now many years later, they figured out divorce traumatizes kids and that the Church was right about divorce and we have a whole generation of children screwed up thanks to divorce. Same thing is happing with gay marriage: practically the same arguments given for gay marraige are the ones that were given back in the day for divorce and the reason why the catholics that support gay marriage are doing it is precisely because they, just like with the divorce issue, are eating those arguments. Was the fight against divorce lost? I don’t think so for the simple reason that today it has been proven that the Church was right about divorce, the thing is that NOBODY wants to talk about it because it shows that in the end, the Church was right, I can bet you anything that in 30 years we are going to see the same thing that happened with divorce happening to gay marriage: a whole generation of kids screwed up thanks to gay marriage.

The same deception tactics were used to help legalize abortion and convince all us “trusting those in authority” Christians that the ‘experts’ were telling us the truth.

1969

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/abortion/articles-and-addresses/an-ex-abortionist-speaks/

Enemy number one? The Catholic Church.

We can’t afford to wait 30 years. Does anyone see a pattern here?

We know the answers now.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

SSM is not a brand new issue in the Scandinavian countries and that is what he is refering too. SSM has been legal for a long time in the Scandinavian countries and the consequences of the legalization of SSM in the whole Scandinavian countries have been a major decline in heterosexual marriage and high rates of single motherhood to the point that only about 30% of children born there are born to parents in a relationship.

I see you live in the United States. It’s a brand new issue here.

It should never have been on the ballot.

As I and others have pointed out, the whole SSM issue appears to be about benefits. The Marriage label is just a label.

Peace,
Ed

 

[LisaA]

The same deception tactics were used to help legalize abortion and convince all us “trusting those in authority” Christians that the ‘experts’ were telling us the truth.

1969

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/abortion/articles-and-addresses/an-ex-abortionist-speaks/

Enemy number one? The Catholic Church.

We can’t afford to wait 30 years. Does anyone see a pattern here?

We know the answers now.

Peace,
Ed

Exactly. I certainly lived through the 180* turnabout regarding divorce as well as the Roe v Wade ruling. In both cases we heard from all sorts of “professionals” that there would be great benefits to families, children and society. I particularly remember that baloney on abortion of “every child a wanted child” and claims there would be no more child abuse. Ditto with divorce, on how much better the children would be if they were not in a home where the parents were not compatible. IOW we legislated in irresponsibility and immoral behavior and wondered why it increased. We created chaos in the lives of millions and wonder why our social services organizations and agencies are strained.

Yet despite ample evidence from history, proponents of SSM claim there will be no ramifications although we’ve already seen lawsuits, expensive court procedings, and the loss of well established and effective social services programs when the organization refuses to adopt to homosexuals. We see rewording of essential state documents…no more husband and wife, no more mother and father. We disparage our very humanity and essential nature in order to accommodate a tiny minority that has successfully latched onto the civil rights movement as if sexual practices were as intrinsic as race. But they assure us it will all be fine once Joe and Fred or Suzy and Sally get to walk down the aisle just like a normal couple.

Lisa