How My View on Gay Marriage Changed

[Durus]

In the history of the world, even under homosexual rulers, homosexuals have never sought to engage in marriage; it’s not their culture; it’s mine. The exception is Nero marrying the slave boy who resembled the wife he kicked to death. Stop the cultural imperialism of homosexuality. Hands off my culture. You have your own. Honor my boundaries.

Give me the civil right to honor this universal sacrament. Homosexuals have no tradition here, no holy honor to restore.

Lord, keep me safe from predation and let the wolves eat themselves. AMEN

In the history of the world…

Things change. Your Church doesn’t have to marry gay people, so it doesn’t affect you.

I’m a married heterosexual and I don’t have any holy anything going on.

With regards to homosexuals having no tradition…now they do, forever more.

Things change and they have changed. Gay people aren’t going anywhere and have the right to be treated equally under the law.

Marriage is not the domain of the religious anymore.

 

[Santi2]

Homosexuality has scavanged around in my culture long enough. I want my culture back. I want my rainbow back. I want “gay” back. I want three billion spent in hush money/reparations to victims of homosexual Catholic clerics back. I want the singular sacrament of marriage back, that hallowing of the primal integration of male and female in matrimony that is set apart as holy.

Christ will return for His Bride, the Church, as John describes in his marriage-named “revelation” taken from the word for that intimate unveiling, that apocalypse. No profane mimickry can stop that. No PC persecution can stop that. May I endure and be faithful and true throughout the apostasy; throughout the erasure of religious rights; throughout the convulsion of heartless indifference to God’s will and to people longing to conform to it. “Even so, come Lord Jesus.”

In the history of the world, even under homosexual rulers, homosexuals have never sought to engage in marriage; it’s not their culture; it’s mine. The exception is Nero marrying the slave boy who resembled the wife he kicked to death. Stop the cultural imperialism of homosexuality. Hands off my culture. You have your own. Honor my boundaries.

Homosexuals represent the richest demographic in America, yet there is a dearth of homosexual charities. Homosexual privilege extends to having creating unconstitutional unequal protection under the law with “hate crimes,” a privilege that Democrats blocked extending to pregnant women. Yet homosexual culture has bred skyrocketing homosexual-on-homosexual violence. Homosexual culture has put women and children last. There are three times the deaths from breast cancer as AIDS; yet AIDS gets three times the funding. Homosexual culture has celebrated bondage and discipline and fake rape as sexual intimacy. Homosexual culture has for millennia obsessed about sexual relations with youth they won’t honor with safety from predation.

Households protected by domestic partnerships can include single mothers uniting under asexual legal and financial certitude. This could suffice to protect homosexuals from life’s insecurities as far as materially possible. That isn’t enough for them. Homosexuals want what is mine. Homosexuals can caricature women, express disdain for “Gennies” (genetic females), dress up and make-up and wed in full drag but sacramental homosexual marriage will be like the profane marriages of Noah’s era, an era filled with rape and violence. Homosexual marriage will never be anything more than another privilege garnered by the richest among us. Homosexual marriage is like an affirmative action program for white males. Marriage is the first and will be the last sacred integration of male and female. Give me the civil right to honor this universal sacrament. Homosexuals have no tradition here, no holy honor to restore.

Lord, keep me safe from predation and let the wolves eat themselves. AMEN

 

[GratefulFred]

Well said Nordskoven. And In Search of Grace (#23) pointed out that prior erosions of the true practice of marriage made possible the current battle we seem to be losing.

What is seldom explained in the on-going debate is just how approving gay marriage will help us all better achieve eternal salvation.

I believe in God. I believe we all have an immortal soul. I believe that we have Free Will. I believe that, in the end, we will live in either Heaven or Hell.

I believe that we are called by God to love as best we can. Love is wanting and working for the ultimate good of the one loved. Any love that ignores the ultimate good is a false love, at least the improper use of love.

Everything we do in this life either brings us closer to God or takes us further away from God. Everything. Even our vote.

Just because the practice of marriage has been eroded is no justification that we are obliged to continue that erosion. If we value our eventual eternal life, we have to exert the courage to get back to the proper practice of marriage.

Given Genesis 2: 18-25, Matthew 19:3-12, and Romans 1:18-32 and other biblical statements, I fail to see how those who think they are trying to follow Christ can vote or support gay marriage. It is not hate, but love of God FIRST that commands me to support traditional marriage.

Just how does gay marriage bring all of us closer to Christ? If it takes us away from Christ, why would we vote for it?

In our pluralistic society, we may lose that vote, but we are obliged to vote our Christ centered values.

 

[starshiptrooper]

In the history of the world…

Things change. Your Church doesn’t have to marry gay people, so it doesn’t affect you.

I’m a married heterosexual and I don’t have any holy anything going on.

With regards to homosexuals having no tradition…now they do, forever more.

Things change and they have changed. Gay people aren’t going anywhere and have the right to be treated equally under the law.

Marriage is not the domain of the religious anymore.

I don’t see why gay marriage is civil rights issue. In the United States (I can’t speak for other countries) the state prevents other citizens from marrying, people who are too young and people who are closely related, are two examples.

My question is, why do gay couples want legal marriage, is this because they want the benefits of legal marriage? If this is the case, I don’t see why they should have them. The state only gives benefits to married couples because their union normally results in children and propagation of society is in the interests of the state.

 

[Crescentinus]

I don’t see why gay marriage is civil rights issue. In the United States (I can’t speak for other countries) the state prevents other citizens from marrying, people who are too young and people who are closely related, are two examples.

My question is, why do gay couples want legal marriage, is this because they want the benefits of legal marriage? If this is the case, I don’t see why they should have them. The state only gives benefits to married couples because their union normally results in children and propagation of society is in the interests of the state.

And in countries that have demographic problems, the state provides subsidies to married couples a lot so as to encourage them to have children to boost their low population growth. This is especially the case with certain countries such as Japan and Australia.

 

[CopticChristian]

nytimes.com/2012/06/23/opinion/how-my-view-on-gay-marriage-changed.html?_r=3

This article is by David Blankenhorn, the founder of the Institute for American Values and had, until recently, been active in campaigning against gay marriage.

True,

I read the article and find this…

For me, the most important is the equal dignity of homosexual love.

My question is what does this mean? What is equal dignity mean in the context of love. How is love defined? Is it just passion? I don’t know what this means and it begs the question as to the definition of love. Once that is defined then the question as to whether there is a concern for dignity.

Whatever one’s definition of marriage, legally recognizing gay and lesbian couples and their children is a victory for basic fairness.

Life is not fair. Why is fairness an issue. What does fairness have to do with anything.

Another good thing is comity. Surely we must live together with some degree of mutual acceptance, even if doing so involves compromise.

Showing courtesy for something you cannot agree with or accept makes no sense.

A third good thing is respect for an emerging consensus. The population as a whole remains deeply divided, but most of our national elites, as well as most younger Americans, favor gay marriage. This emerging consensus may be wrong on the merits. But surely it matters.

Consensus. We are to live morally by consensus. Let’s vote for morality so that all can accept a moral consensus. Does this make any sense? This is the counter cry to the supposed imposition of laws that are imposing morality on the minority and asking for acceptance of a consensus on beliefs.

In the mind of today’s public, gay marriage is almost entirely about accepting lesbians and gay men as equal citizens.

This is bull. Homoesuals are people. They can vote, work, pay taxes and as far as I can tell they are equal in every way except they cannot procreate naturally and they want special priveleges that I see does not equate to equality but rather privelege.

Can we agree that, for all lovers who want their love to last, marriage is preferable to cohabitation?

So, now we are back to what is love, baby don’t hurt me, oh no…couldn’t help myself…but how is love defined? Marriage is preferable. Cohabitation is always a choice.

 

[CopticChristian]

Why the heck would you call this a “hate piece”?
If anything, it’s a love letter.

Daddy,

As you will notice my posting suggests that the definition of love needs to be stated and agreed on, until then it is neither hate or love just an opinion.

No one can deny that Homosexuals have all the rights that other citizens have. They can of course be denied the privelege of driving because you need a license. Licenses are required for marriage as we speak and that speaks of privelege not right.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

nytimes.com/2012/06/23/opinion/how-my-view-on-gay-marriage-changed.html?_r=3

This article is by David Blankenhorn, the founder of the Institute for American Values and had, until recently, been active in campaigning against gay marriage.

From the interview by Mark Oppenheimer of David Blankenhorn upon his news grabbing switch of sides in the gay ‘marriage’ debate, I read with interest his background and direct words explaining his change of mind from opponent to one who favors SS’M’ as a legal right.

Info on Mr. Blankenhorn:

• A self described liberal who voted for Obama
• Community organizer who worked on anti-poverty programs
• Founded Institute of American Values
• Bothered by social problem of fatherless homes, wrote in 1994 a book about fatherhood, titled Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem. Preached message to keep fathers in the home.

Oppenheimer: “Marriage was important, but not because of some 1950s ideal or to stop people from fornicating. No, marriage was important–Blankenhorn believed–because it was the way societies had always managed, for thousands of years, to keep fathers in their children’s lives. To Blankenhorn, this was something no good liberal could possibly object to.”

• Wrote in 2007 The Future of Marriage, where he writes his position based on extensive research about his belief that marriage exists to unite a child with his or her biological parents. It is only in the end of the book that he came out against gay marriage. All along, mind you, he really did not think anything was wrong with being gay, nothing sinful about gay sex, but without much forethought it seems came to the side of the fence of anti gay marriage! IOW, by accident.
• Served as a witness by the Prop 8 side in the trial Perry v Schwarzenegger in front of Judge Walker in California. Accordingly he did not even make a good witness, withering on direct exam by gay ‘marriage’ side attorney David Boies.
• Became the laughing stock of the left and the target of the LGBT camp, called a bigot, as are all anti-gay marriage folks.

I would not call him a buffoon as some from both sides who have already judged him to be. I just think he really did not think this gay marriage was going to be a juggernaut that would reach the highest judiciary body of the land, and that it is easier to be one of the pushers instead of a key defender. For a bright guy, it is interesting that he did not think far enough or deep enough that compartmentalization, i.e., gay marriage is wrong but gay sex is okay, would land him in an inexplicable position.

In short, David Blankenhorn became a reluctant conservative on a huge social issue, not served by addled thinking. In truth, as it turns out, he is too much of a liberal, too much part of the left.

The most ridiculous part IMO of what Mr. Blankenhorn said was that he thinks he can persuade gays to help strengthen marriage as an institution.

Does his change of side help the gay ‘marriage’ camp? Sure. Does this spell victory for them? Heck, no!

My 2 cents.

Mark Oppenheimer’ interview of David Blankenhorn here.
,

 

[ConstantineTG]

We can’t lay blame on homosexuality. Homosexuality has existed for a long time. Even in the Bible it has been mentioned throughout, even from Leviticus which has predated the incarnation of Christ by over 1000 years. The problem really is we have a weak view of marriage today. For most people it is nothing but sexual preference that is why consenting adults of any mix should be able to get married. We need to restore the true meaning of marriage. To blame homosexuality on same-sex marriage won’t solve the issue because if it is not homosexuality, it is something else.

 

[livingwordunity]

I do agree with what he is saying. We’re losing the gay marriage debate because we have already, at this point, eroded the meaning of marriage

Who’s “we”? The meaning of marriage was eroded by liberal Protestantism and reduced to a contract, but it’s still a sacrament in the Catholic Church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Who’s “we”? The meaning of marriage was eroded by liberal Protestantism and reduced to a contract, but it’s still a sacrament in the Catholic Church.

We as a society.

 

[livingwordunity]

We as a society.

Society has failed, but God still expects Catholics and those who claim to be followers of Christ to continue to be a light to the world. We are called to tell the truth in season and out of season regardless of if people want to hear the truth or not. If people won’t listen to us when we tell them the truth about marriage God will judge them for it but not us.

 

[spencelo]

It’s refreshing to see such a prominent figure in anti-gay marriage camp change his mind, which is surely a sign that the tide is turning – for the better.

 

[CopticChristian]

It’s refreshing to see such a prominent figure in anti-gay marriage camp change his mind, which is surely a sign that the tide is turning – for the better.

Spence,

I understand refreshing.

I don’t understand what you mean by the tide turning for the better.

Is the tide turning for the better for Blankenhorn?

Is the tide turning for the better for anti-gay marriage?

Is the tide turning for changing minds?

Help me out here and be specific.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Spence,

I understand refreshing.

I don’t understand what you mean by the tide turning for the better.

Is the tide turning for the better for Blankenhorn?

Is the tide turning for the better for anti-gay marriage?

Is the tide turning for changing minds?

Help me out here and be specific.

CC, I think it’s pretty clear that he assumes Blankenhorn’s opinion piece to be representative of “the tide” of public opinion turning “for the better.” Whereas it’s obvious to me that it’s merely indicative of joining a bandwagon, given the cliches that Blankenhorn has imported.

 

[spencelo]

Spence,

I understand refreshing.

I don’t understand what you mean by the tide turning for the better.

Is the tide turning for the better for Blankenhorn?

Is the tide turning for the better for anti-gay marriage?

Is the tide turning for changing minds?

Help me out here and be specific.

I thought my meaning was fairly clear. The tide is turning in favor of societal acceptance of marriage equality, which I take to be a good thing. If people high up in the anti-gay marriage camp can change their minds, and do so publicly, that gives me hope that others will follow. The SSM debate, in my view, is being resolved in the right direction.

 

[CopticChristian]

I thought my meaning was fairly clear. The tide is turning in favor of societal acceptance of marriage equality, which I take to be a good thing. If people high up in the anti-gay marriage camp can change their minds, and do so publicly, that gives me hope that others will follow. The SSM debate, in my view, is being resolved in the right direction.

Spence,

So what you are saying is that marriage as in instutution is unequal. Correct?

There are people high up in the gay marriage camp. Correct?

If there is High up then there must be down here, how do you define this inequality of high up and down here? How is one designated as high up?

If people follow that are high up as you say then there are others that follow based on this opinion? This denies that those in the down here have freedom to choose.

You say that the same sex marriage is a debate. Debates come and go and rarely solve a problem. Marriage is a privelege not a right.

 

[livingwordunity]

I thought my meaning was fairly clear. The tide is turning in favor of societal acceptance of marriage equality, which I take to be a good thing. If people high up in the anti-gay marriage camp can change their minds, and do so publicly, that gives me hope that others will follow. The SSM debate, in my view, is being resolved in the right direction.

In the Catholic faith we believe in the unchanging truth of natural law because that law comes from God who is unchanging. Therefore, marriage in the Catholic Church will always be as God intended it from the beginning, a divine sacramental covenant (not a mere human contract) between one man and one woman.

 

[spencelo]

Spence,

So what you are saying is that marriage as in instutution is unequal. Correct?

No. But I would say that the laws governing marriage are unequal, in that they permit unjustified discrimination.

There are people high up in the gay marriage camp. Correct?

Sure, there are leaders and well-known advocates on both sides of the SSM debate.

If there is High up then there must be down here, how do you define this inequality of high up and down here? How is one designated as high up?

Well-known advocates and leaders = high up. Everyone else (myself included) = down here.

If people follow that are high up as you say then there are others that follow based on this opinion? This denies that those in the down here have freedom to choose.

Many people “down here” are influenced by what people “high up” say in this debate – not sure why you find this fact surprising. And I have no idea why you think such influences violate our freedom to choose.

You say that the same sex marriage is a debate. Debates come and go and rarely solve a problem. Marriage is a privelege not a right.

Marriage isn’t a right? That’s news to me. I must have misread Loving v. Virginia, in which the Supreme Court said that marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man.”

 

[spencelo]

In the Catholic faith we believe in the unchanging truth of natural law because that law comes from God who is unchanging. Therefore, marriage in the Catholic Church will always be as God intended it from the beginning, a divine sacramental covenant (not a mere human contract) between one man and one woman.

That’s fine – the debate over SSM isn’t a debate over what “marriage in the Catholic Church” should be. It’s a debate over whether same-sex couples should have the same right as their heterosexual counterparts to enter into **civil marriage. **So, the Catholic view of marriage is irrelevant to this debate.