Same sex marriages...how the meaning of marriage began to erode

[whatevergirl]

I’m not sure if this topic should be placed here, so please move it mods if I put it in the wrong spot. (thank you)

I watched the most fascinating show last night on EWTN…Anyone else catch it? It was calling…The Meaning of Marriage, with Scott Hahn, and two other theology scholars and a priest (The show is actually Franciscan University Presents)

One of the scholars (it wasn’t Dr Regis Martin who is often a regular on that show–I just checked EWTN’s site and can’t find the person who was on?) basically said that the onset of SS marriages/civil unions, did not happen over night, or even over a decade. He said that what happened back in the 60’s was the common sentiment of…‘do what makes YOU feel good. do what you like, when you like, etc…’ Over time, that sentiment started translating into our marriages. Divorce started to soar, more and more couples stopped marrying and started cohabitating, more children born out of wedlock, the rise of abortion and birth control…and so on. Adults simply did not want to take responsibility for their sexuality, thus we see the erosion of what marriage was ‘meant to be.’ Now fast forward to now, where the SS marriage cases are being brought forth, and the scholar said that the preceding things did not ‘cause’ same sex couples to feel they have a right to marry, but really was the ‘effect.’ (I thought that was a brilliant statement)

He went on to say that what started to happen in society, is that homosexual people started to see that heterosexuals were ‘able to do whatever they choose, so why are we being held back from the right to marry?’ And, so he said when you step back and look over the past 50 to 60 years of our history, one can see that the term marriage began to erode, and now it really doesn’t have the same significance it once had, say back in the 40’s. So, SS couples are not trying to change marriage, it has been changing and eroding for decades.

I wanted to post this, because I thought it was a fascinating concept, and also to see if any of you caught this program last night?

 

[whatevergirl]

Just wanted to add;

This is not to say that same sex couples are not geuinely interested in having their love recognized, as a matter of fact, that is what this scholar was saying–that they see no problem in having their love recogized, especially when their heterosexual counterparts marry and divorce at the drop of a hat, or live together, and eventually enjoy some of the marriage benefits, as though they were married. He went on to say that it hard to fight a problem in and of itself when it comes to same sex unions–when heterosexuals have done a poor job of keeping the meaning of marriage, consistent, holy, and steadfast. (I’m paraphrasing, but this was the basic gist) Interesting points.

 

[BlaineTog]

Indeed. Sexual morality is part of a cohesive whole, and the idea of homosexual marriage is a direct consequence of the permissibility of divorce and sex before marriage. Once “marriage” just means “a contract of love between a man and a woman,” and sex is simply “an expression or love,” then there’s no real reason to maintain either the indivisibility of marriage (once the “love” dies out or weakens, why soldier on?), or the requirement of “man + woman” (you can have sex with and feelings of love for someone of your own gender, so why not?).

 

[whatevergirl]

Indeed. Sexual morality is part of a cohesive whole, and the idea of homosexual marriage is a direct consequence of the permissibility of divorce and sex before marriage. Once “marriage” just means “a contract of love between a man and a woman,” and sex is simply “an expression or love,” then there’s no real reason to maintain either the indivisibility of marriage (once the “love” dies out or weakens, why soldier on?), or the requirement of “man + woman” (you can have sex with and feelings of love for someone of your own gender, so why not?).

Hi Blaine;

Yes–I never ‘got’ that in the past. I had friends who would try to explain this to me, and I always failed to see the connection between how divorce, abortion, and birth control all paved the way for the same sex union debate. It is interesting.

 

[edwest2]

Here is where it started. I was there.

In the 1960s, everyone I knew was taught to value chastity, decency, modesty, in word and dress, and politeness toward all ages. Marriage was a sacred agreement between a man and a woman, a sacrament. No, I’m not suggesting anything was perfect. Young girls and boys experienced appropriate shame in certain situations and were aware of sin.

The idea was to sell certain “alternative” lifestyles.

1960 The birth control Pill.
1968 The Hippie Movement and Gay Rights Movement start simultaneously. The anti-family philosophy had already begun with books like The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan, a Communist, who referred to the family as a “comfortable concentration camp.”
The Hippies begin to promote illegal and dangerous drugs as cool and even beneficial (mind expanding). Taking LSD leads to auditory and visual hallucinations, self-mutilation and suicide, for example.
No-Fault Divorce begins in California.
A Hippie friend of mine tells me: “I don’t need no piece of paper to live with my old lady.”
1970 Hard core pornography appears and with it, the beginning of the spread of so-called Adult Bookstores.
1973 Abortion legalized but only in case of emergency.
1978 The National Organization for Women tells all women that they are victims. That all men are the enemy. Feminist Gloria Steinem tells women: “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.”
They also push for the Equal Rights Amendment, which would have helped the gay movement, it fails.
NOW drives a wedge of suspicion, mistrust and fear between men and women that still exists today.
1980s No-Fault Divorce completes its sweep of the country. If you have no kids, you can solve your problems for $80. Porn appears on cable and hotels and motels.
1990s You can no longer tell a Christian from a non-Christian. Partial nudity and profanity appear on network TV. The internet multiplies the access level to pornography.
2000s NOW’s position on pornography is that they have no position. Prostitution is sold as a “victimless crime,” divorce is widespread, with many people on marriage 2 or 3. Sex before marriage is widespread and the consequences are not considered. Abortion has become abortion on demand.
Gay Rights is no longer about Gay Rights but about mix and match, anything goes rights. In a document titled “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage,” signed by Gloria Steinem, among others, the goal is multiple sex partners.
firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=330

The primary thing being promoted today is that everyone should have lots of sex, to not feel guilty or ashamed or sinful about anything. That young women should dress like prostitutes and only their physical appearance matters. The goal is to destroy the family.

God bless,
Ed

 

[blessedtoo]

I have to disagree to some extent with the “expert” opinion expressed in this show. If one studies the origins of the gay rights and ssm movement, one can quickly discern that the motivation was not to “join” the institution of marriage but rather to completely destroy the understanding of traditional marriage. Original activists were not interested in modelling their “unions” after tradition heterosexual marriage. Monogamy, procreation, life-long union, etc., were to be jetttisoned in favor of a looser interpretation which could include more than two “married” partners, children begotten through artifical means, marriage “contracts” with an expiration date, the acceptance of extra-marital activity, etc.

We can see by looking at the numbers in the countries where ssm has been made legal (especially Canada) that the actual percentage of same sex couples that have married is very low. The objective has been to destroy the traditional family and remake it without definition. And keep in mind that the gay rights movement went hand-in-hand with the rise of militant feminism, a movement that clearly stated it’s intention to free women from the “concentration camps” of the marital relationship.

 

[whatevergirl]

I have to disagree to some extent with the “expert” opinion expressed in this show. If one studies the origins of the gay rights and ssm movement, one can quickly discern that the motivation was not to “join” the institution of marriage but rather to completely destroy the understanding of traditional marriage. Original activists were not interested in modelling their “unions” after tradition heterosexual marriage. Monogamy, procreation, life-long union, etc., were to be jetttisoned in favor of a looser interpretation which could include more than two “married” partners, children begotten through artifical means, marriage “contracts” with an expiration date, the acceptance of extra-marital activity, etc.

We can see by looking at the numbers in the countries where ssm has been made legal (especially Canada) that the actual percentage of same sex couples that have married is very low. The objective has been to destroy the traditional family and remake it without definition. And keep in mind that the gay rights movement went hand-in-hand with the rise of militant feminism, a movement that clearly stated it’s intention to free women from the “concentration camps” of the marital relationship.

True, but there is also truth in what the scholar was saying, that heterosexuals, by over the years, choosing to live with their partners by and large, rather than marrying them–has denegraded the meaning of marriage as well. He said…‘why get married, if I can just live with someone with no strings attached?’ Sexuality has also been abused and misused in our heterosexual society as well, and has done a good job (lack of a better word) in destroying family values. The shows that we see on tv today–by and large show heterosexuals having sex with no restrictions or boundaries…and thus, it paints a picture of marriage as ‘an old institution, and if it works FOR YOU, great, but it doesn’t work for me…I’d rather just have my fun, and if I don’t like this person, I can dump them.’ That is sadly a message that heterosexuals have compiled on our own. (not you and me, but a vast number of them) So, gays are looking to us and saying…if THEY can change the definition of marriage to be this or that, why can’t we? Why can’t we be given rights as a cohbaitating couple (in some states, you are considered legally married if you have lived together for 7+ years) who are heterosexual? So, I absolutely agree with you–but this person was pointing out that it isn’t just the ss couples who are trying to change the definition of marriage, it is also heterosexuals…by large with the mantra over the generations…

“DO WHAT MAKES YOU FEEL GOOD.’ So homosexual couples are 'doing what feels good and right” (TO THEM). See, the boundaries of objective morality have most certainly blurred!

 

[blessedtoo]

I still disagree.

Heterosexuals have DEGRADED the institution of marriage. Full agreement on that one. However, chossing to co-habitate BEFORE marriage, divorce AFTER marriage, even adultery (usually frowned upon except in the rare case of "swingers DURING marriage do not REDEFINE the institution itself.

I will concede however, and agree completely, that this redefinition of marriage began with the acceptance of artifical birth control. The deliberate and successful attempts to separate the baby making activity from the actual making of babies was, IMO, the beginning of the complete cultural confusion regarding the purpose of marriage.

 

[edwest2]

Television, and the media in general, have helped to destroy morality and the family.

TV shows like All in the Family, dealt with topics like sexuality which were never dealt with on TV in the 1950s or 60s. As time passed, more and more negative, immoral and indecent behavior began to appear on network TV. Sue Ellen on Dallas drinking straight from a bottle while driving. Hill Street Blues showed a police officer that frequented a strip club and the captain in a room with his wife lying on top of him. In the 1990’s, profanity appeared, most notably on NYPD Blue, along with Partial Nudity. Oh yes, we all needed to see that. The so-called “shock jocks” appeared on the radio, spewing profanity, promoting prostitutes, incorrectly referred to as “porn stars,” and immorality in general.

The Hippie legacy is this: harmful, illegal drugs, marriage is optional, and morality is whatever you think it is. John Lennon and Yoko Ono sang:
Whatever gets you through the night, it’s alright, alright
Be it wrong or be it right, it’s alright, alright

God bless,
Ed

 

[whatevergirl]

I still disagree.

Heterosexuals have DEGRADED the institution of marriage. Full agreement on that one. However, chossing to co-habitate BEFORE marriage, divorce AFTER marriage, even adultery (usually frowned upon except in the rare case of "swingers DURING marriage do not REDEFINE the institution itself.

I will concede however, and agree completely, that this redefinition of marriage began with the acceptance of artifical birth control. The deliberate and successful attempts to separate the baby making activity from the actual making of babies was, IMO, the beginning of the complete cultural confusion regarding the purpose of marriage.

He wasn’t saying heterosexuals redefined it except to say that it is no longer seen as a lasting union between two people…and he didn’t say this caused the same sex union debate, but it has resulted in it. Hope that clarifies his point better.

 

[Maxply]

Great discussion; fascinating points from all . . . but for me, I’m wondering, how do we fight back?

 

[edwest2]

Don’t imitate the secular world.

God bless,
Ed

 

[whatevergirl]

Great discussion; fascinating points from all . . . but for me, I’m wondering, how do we fight back?

I went to bed before the show was finished…I wonder if they discussed that aspect of it! I would think that we can’t allow for ss unions because marriage will fail to mean anything really…it will mean whatever the couple wants it to mean…I can see where polygamists will want ‘their rights met’ as well if that happens. Just a thought.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Don’t imitate the secular world.

God bless,
Ed

Imitate Christ

 

[TIME]

I went to bed before the show was finished…I wonder if they discussed that aspect of it! I would think that we can’t allow for ss unions because marriage will fail to mean anything really…it will mean whatever the couple wants it to mean…I can see where polygamists will want ‘their rights met’ as well if that happens. Just a thought.

Imitating, Christ and following His teachings, The modern day secularist and relativist can’t beat that.

I like to bring that point up as well in, discussing the slippery slope of SS marriage. If you support SS marriage you have to support anything and everything, such as Polygamy. When ever I broach that topic, talking to gay supporters and feminist, it always seems to infuriate them for some reason. I dunno.

 

[whatevergirl]

Imitating, Christ and following His teachings, The modern day secularist and relativist can’t beat that.

I like to bring that point up as well in, discussing the slippery slope of SS marriage. If you support SS marriage you have to support anything and everything, such as Polygamy. When ever I broach that topic, talking to gay supporters and feminist, it always seems to infuriate them for some reason. I dunno.

Because they, like many people, have succombed to the mantra…‘I want to do what is right and feels good for me.’ Love does feel good. I have often pondered would God be angry that two men love one another, or two women? I remember the movie V for Vandetta, and how dramatically that was portrayed and how that struck a chord with me. I don’t believe we shouldn’t be tolerante and loving of people who in same sex relationships–but if we start to grant everyone a marriage, marriage will fail to mean anything that it was intended to mean. It is not wrong for two people of the same sex to love one another–but marriage requires a sexual union, and so…it stands to reason that is why is doesn’t fit the true definition of marriage–UNLESS CHANGED.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Imitating, Christ and following His teachings, The modern day secularist and relativist can’t beat that.

I like to bring that point up as well in, discussing the slippery slope of SS marriage. If you support SS marriage you have to support anything and everything, such as Polygamy. When ever I broach that topic, talking to gay supporters and feminist, it always seems to infuriate them for some reason. I dunno.

I too have brought it up several times. They will avoid the conversation at all costs. Really want to poke the rattlesnake? Bring up consentual incest!

 

[whatevergirl]

I too have brought it up several times. They will avoid the conversation at all costs. Really want to poke the rattlesnake? Bring up consentual incest!

lol–ok. I have seen that argument on here…that is a bit out there. Come on…brothers and sisters–cousins to cousins…father and daughter–etc–are not by and large seeking marriage.

 

[iamrefreshed]

lol–ok. I have seen that argument on here…that is a bit out there. Come on…brothers and sisters–cousins to cousins…father and daughter–etc–are not by and large seeking marriage.

I don’t think quantity should be the measuring stick.

Some sources cite that less than 0.05% of populations are gay couples seeking marriage.

 

[whatevergirl]

I don’t think quantity should be the measuring stick.

Some sources cite that less than 0.05% of populations are gay couples seeking marriage.

true–and it also has nothing to do with what that show and its panel were pointing out…that the decay of marriage and the original intent of it has been going on for some time.