Kurtz on the Planned Abolition of Marriage in Canada

  • Thread starter Thread starter WanderAimlessly
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

WanderAimlessly

Guest
Kurtz on the Planned Abolition of Marriage in Canada
By Terry Vanderheyden

WASHINGTON, February 7, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Prominent American conservative commentator Stanley Kurtz has uncovered a chilling plot for Canada – the former Liberal government, in collusion with liberal courts, has been attempting to “abolish marriage” entirely.

The first obvious reality is that the past Liberal governments, with the courts, have already caused critical damage to marriage – the advent of so-called same-sex marriage is a major step towards abolishing marriage. A next step will be legalization of polygamy, as the Liberals have already considered.

Full story​

PF
 
Even more reason to not vote for the Liberals when this Conservative minority fails. Now I just hope all the NDP/Liberal-voting Catholics realize this! :eek:
 
Seems rather ridiculous to me. Polygamy has existed in many societies for thousands of years, including biblical Israel. Is this to suggest that there was no “real marriage” in these societies because of the existence of polygamy?

Secondly, the recognition of same-sex marriage isn’t going to “destroy marriage”. These are relationships that would exist, whether or not you would like to ignore them. Traditional marriage will still exist, and will be the predominant form of marriage as a very small number of people are gay.

This whole “destruction of marriage” is nonsense. No one has provided an argument as to how marriage will be destroyed by homosexuals or liberals. It seems more like apocolyptic fear mongering.
 
For example, a quote from Kurtz says: “The way to abolish marriage, without seeming to abolish it, is to redefine the institution out of existence. If everything can be marriage, pretty soon nothing will be marriage.”

Hmmm, eloquent phrasing can be convincing, but let’s actually analyze this argument. “If everything can be marriage?”, what does he mean by this? Can a man wed a tea cup? A woman her poodle? A child his favorite t-shirt? Can two school girls in kindergarten claim to be a married couple? Can a man wed his newborn child? I would say if marriage liscenses were simply distributed to anybody without any basis, then I suppose we could claim that marriage means nothing, in a sense. But does it really look like same sex marriage is taking us in this direction? The requirements are two persons of a defined age, who both consent to the union. Big deal, they’re both men, or they’re both women. It’s not going to cast society into dissary. People aren’t going to declare it their legal right to wed their comatose grandmother, or be united with their bedpost. And if they do, I hardly think same-sex marriage will have established a precedent for it.

I mean, two straight people can obtain a marriage liscense after having known eachother for three minutes. They can get married in Veags by Elvis if they so choose, and get an anullment hours later. This has been the case for decades. People get married on flashy gameshows. Yet none of this appears to have “destroyed marriage”. The 50% divorce rate has not “turned marriage into nothing”. Yet two commited homosexuals who promise to love and nurture eachother for the rest of their lives…this will destroy marriage?

Thats a version of logic that I have NEVER been acquainted with.

P.S. Why do the liberals want to “abolish marriage” in the first place? What do they have to gain by accomplishing this malicious agenda? I’m sure a significant portion of liberals are married themselves.
 
40.png
Gnosis:
I’m sure a significant portion of liberals are married themselves.
Click to expand...
Indeed - often several times!
 
40.png
Gnosis:
Seems rather ridiculous to me. Polygamy has existed in many societies for thousands of years, including biblical Israel. Is this to suggest that there was no “real marriage” in these societies because of the existence of polygamy?

Secondly, the recognition of same-sex marriage isn’t going to “destroy marriage”. These are relationships that would exist, whether or not you would like to ignore them. Traditional marriage will still exist, and will be the predominant form of marriage as a very small number of people are gay.

This whole “destruction of marriage” is nonsense. No one has provided an argument as to how marriage will be destroyed by homosexuals or liberals. It seems more like apocolyptic fear mongering.
Click to expand...
Yes, these relationships exist. The problem with the Liberal agenda on this is that it attempts to create a false moral eqivelance between gay relationships and heterosexual marriage. It lowers the value of real marriage by saying it is of no more value than gay relationships. That is the real problem.

It really began when shacking up was given the same weight as real marriage. Now we have this homosexual mockery being given the same weight. Next is polygamy. This is a deliberate agenda on the part of certain segments of society to eliminate the moral fabric of our society and replace it with the idea that all opinions have equal weight, which is already being taught in our public schools.

There is no slippery slope here. This is a deliberate climb into the moral abyss by those seeking to abolish public morality so that they can engage in ubridled hedonism with no social consequences.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top