Selected lame gay "marriage" cliches refuted

[NeedImprovement]

Three posts ago,I’d said :

NeedImprovement:

While peoples’ personal interpretation of marriage “within the last century or so”, may have been somewhat influenced by individualism, the definition of marriage has always remained constant and has always understood the prerequisite comprisal of its foundation to be the union of a man and a woman. Any change in that definition is recent, is a lie, and is a direct consequence of the gay militant / homosexual activist agenda ; which serves to undermine marriage and the family.

To further claim inaccurately
Deo Volente:

…and homosexuals had nothing to do with that, though they’re certainly capitalizing on it… .

is not only in my opinion, a serious error ; it’s quite an outrageous one.

.

I stand by that post, particularly by the word “outrageous”. The reponse to that post, only serves to ephasize just how outrageous that claim posted really is . Let’s consider one section of that response a moment :

. . .
: if heterosexuals had not construed marriage to mean more about the couple than about the society in which the couple lives, and further, if they had not introduced the concept of the intentionally childless marriage, then homosexuals would not have been able to imagine themselves married to each other in the first place.

:doh2:

If that were true, then-] married /-] homosexuals necessarily have to be the first ones to agree/concede that they have absolutely no legitimate claim to the adoption of someone else’s children - otherwise, according to that (ahem) analysis, they would even be denying their own homosexuality.

 

[sedonaman]

To the Modern Liberal, indiscriminateness is a moral imperative. The only way to be moral is not to discriminate between right and wrong, good and evil, better and worse, truth and lies, because an act of discrimination might be a reflection of personal bigotry. Indiscriminateness is a moral imperative because its opposite is the evil of having discriminated.

Indiscriminateness of thought leads the Modern Liberal to side invariably with evil over good, wrong over right, and the behaviors that lead to failures over those that lead to success. Why? Because if nothing is to be recognized as better or worse than anything else, then success is de facto unjust. There is no explanation for success if nothing is better than anything else, and the greater the success, the greater the injustice. Likewise, failure is de facto proof of victimization, and the greater the failure, the greater the victimization. As a result, the multiculturalist must, invariably and inevitably, become an apologist for tyranny. He must also become an antagonist to liberty. If you extrapolate to all of those who are indiscriminate across the board besides culture, they must become antagonists to everything that is good, right, and successful. If we say that the U.S. has become the most successful nation in history, this needs to be explained. There are only two possibilities: our Judeo-Christian heritage is exceptional, or we cheated, and the magnitude of our success proves we are the most unjust people in the history of the world. At this point, the Modern Liberal, the multiculturalist, has already taken one of those two possibilities off the table. He cannot believe that it is an exceptional culture because he wouldn’t be a multiculturalist if he could.

When we fail to discriminate between good and evil, right and wrong, and the behaviors that lead to success and those that lead to failure, we do not end up indifferent; we end up hating what is good, right, and successful. We have seen this pattern over an over. The idea that one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter has led to a resurgence of anti-Semitism; the belief that America is no better than any other country has led to hatred of America. So, the idea that same-sex partners should be allowed to marry, the current cause célèbre, will lead, not to indifference and tolerance, but to hatred of heterosexual couples and heterosexual marriage.

---

What started as a demand for basic civil rights has mutated into a liberal demand to overturn the whole society, along with its traditions and norms, its standards and laws, its history and heroes.

 

[NeedImprovement]

To the Modern Liberal, indiscriminateness is a moral imperative. The only way to be moral is not to discriminate between right and wrong, good and evil, better and worse, truth and lies, because an act of discrimination might be a reflection of personal bigotry. Indiscriminateness is a moral imperative because its opposite is the evil of having discriminated.

Indiscriminateness of thought leads the Modern Liberal to side invariably with evil over good, wrong over right, and the behaviors that lead to failures over those that lead to success. Why? Because if nothing is to be recognized as better or worse than anything else, then success is de facto unjust. There is no explanation for success if nothing is better than anything else, and the greater the success, the greater the injustice. Likewise, failure is de facto proof of victimization, and the greater the failure, the greater the victimization. As a result, the multiculturalist must, invariably and inevitably, become an apologist for tyranny. He must also become an antagonist to liberty. If you extrapolate to all of those who are indiscriminate across the board besides culture, they must become antagonists to everything that is good, right, and successful. If we say that the U.S. has become the most successful nation in history, this needs to be explained. There are only two possibilities: our Judeo-Christian heritage is exceptional, or we cheated, and the magnitude of our success proves we are the most unjust people in the history of the world. At this point, the Modern Liberal, the multiculturalist, has already taken one of those two possibilities off the table. He cannot believe that it is an exceptional culture because he wouldn’t be a multiculturalist if he could.

When we fail to discriminate between good and evil, right and wrong, and the behaviors that lead to success and those that lead to failure, we do not end up indifferent; we end up hating what is good, right, and successful. We have seen this pattern over an over. The idea that one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter has led to a resurgence of anti-Semitism; the belief that America is no better than any other country has led to hatred of America. So, the idea that same-sex partners should be allowed to marry, the current cause célèbre, will lead, not to indifference and tolerance, but to hatred of heterosexual couples and heterosexual marriage.

---

What started as a demand for basic civil rights has mutated into a liberal demand to overturn the whole society, along with its traditions and norms, its standards and laws, its history and heroes.

. . . and this, being implemented by such a minute percentage of the population

Let me add that the word “discrimination” has gotten a bum rap. Everyone discriminates all day, every day in a wide range of situations. Every time you have observed a difference, you have discriminated.

. . . an intentional bum rap by that same minute percentage , and certainly, we ourselves, and the law, discriminate daily.

An excerpt from THE LAWFUL DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE IN THE DOMINION OF CANADA

The law can, should, and does morally discriminate. For example, male-only and female-only washroom laws morally discriminate on the basis of sex. Male-only and female-only schools, jobs, teams, clubs, areas, accommodations, etc. discriminate based on sex. Birth certificates discriminate based on sex. Sex-based insurance rates discriminate based on sex. Age-based insurance rates discriminate based on age. Age-of-consent laws discriminate based on age. Voting-age laws discriminate based on age. Lawful definitions for words morally discriminate on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age and mental or physical disability.

.

Of course, what “discrimination” *means, and not how a dictionary defines it * is the real issue - isn’t it ? ( ) If so,how is it that the homosexual activists are the only reference we are permitted to consult to determine its real “meaning” ?

My Dear Lord and Saviour, please have mercy on me a sinner , but do also good Lord Jesus, vochsafe to guard me from sophistry in all its illusive inclement glory.

AMEN

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I thought that *what I actually believe *was much better expressed in the quote from James A. Watkins included my previous post :

I would have thought that you would have understood marriage in more positive terms rather than negative ones–by buying into a negative understanding, you seem to suggest that you believe that marriage, in order to be marriage, must be over against something else, that something else must be rejected in order for marriage to truly be marriage; marriage cannot be understood on its own terms, it must be against something in order to be properly understood. I imagine such an understanding might be useful in polemical terms or in a more politicized context. I’m just not sure that that those are the terms / contexts in which a sacrament is best understood.

The words “substance” and “accidents” have distinct philosophical definitions - dictionary definitions, necessary for proper objective analysis. With these two definitions , we can tell what is black and what is white , as opposed to reading certain propositions positing that “everything is grey” .

Substance and accidents are indeed important concepts which, beyond their dictionary definition, speak to a decidedly Catholic sacramental context. You cannot, however, expect the modern liberal state to share that Catholic context. From a Catholic sacramental position, SSM of course lacks proper matter for the confection of the sacrament. An argument can be made that it lacks proper intent as well. This is a clear case for why the Roman Catholic Church cannot (and should not pretend to) solemnize a same-sex union in a sacramental sense.

Where I can agree with you DV , is in the harm that birth control and abortion causes to families, to marriages. And what good things can we say about divorce, considering that it divests families of their spiritual and material while simultaneously making some lawyers richer. It has been proposed by more than one Catholic thinker, that birth conrtrol leads to divorce. I consider all these things as dmaging marriage - not as “defining” it or discerning its meaning.

Ah. I understand what you’re saying, and on reflection, it’s clear I mis-identified birth control and divorce as causes rather symptoms of a general shift in the understanding of what marriage is. But I would argue that they are, indeed, symptoms of a real shift–not in the sacramental understanding of marriage (which understanding should not change!), but in the understanding of marriage in the eyes of the state and of the general populace. And those symptoms arise out of the growth in a belief that, in one way or another, anything and everything can be a tool of individual self-actualization, including holy things. And if those holy things resist being used as such (and they do, naturally), then the holy will be defined out of them–they will be evacuated of all sacramental meaning in order to be better appropriated.

And this relates to your more recent post to me–it’s a situation of cause and effect. For better or worse, Communism would have been impossible without the industrial revolution. For better or worse, Women’s Lib would not have formed as a movement in the way it did were it not for women entering the male-dominated workforce during WWII in such numbers. Homosexuals did not come out of nowhere and start to advocate for a change in our understanding of what marriage means. The ideology of individualism had already overwhelmed the institution of marriage in the popular consciousness. It is as if a seed from a good tree were genetically altered to produce a similar tree that bore radically different fruit. The individualist ideology represents the alterations made to the seed; the full-grown tree bears the fruit of high divorce rates, birth control, and most recently, same sex marriage. It’s not as if the original tree is dead, it is that so many have taken the new tree to be the original.

I would argue that a lot of the difficulty the Church will encounter regarding same-sex marriage will arise from a tendency *from individuals *(even individuals in the hierarchy) to confuse the two trees, speaking of one tree in the terms of the other.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[StevenFrancis]

We have seen this pattern over an over. The idea that one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter has led to a resurgence of anti-Semitism; the belief that America is no better than any other country has led to hatred of America. So, the idea that same-sex partners should be allowed to marry, the current cause célèbre, will lead, not to indifference and tolerance, but to hatred of heterosexual couples and heterosexual marriage.

---

What started as a demand for basic civil rights has mutated into a liberal demand to overturn the whole society, along with its traditions and norms, its standards and laws, its history and heroes.

I would quibble that the hatred of heterosexual institutions, and self-hatred by heterosexuals is already in fairly florid display.

Your whole post is excellent, and well stated. I hope it is well read.

May God bless,

Steven

 

[sedonaman]

… . . . an intentional bum rap by that same minute percentage …

I have my own theory on that. Ideas originate in colleges and universities. I could always tell when someone in the head office was taking a grad course in management by the unusual requests for information that came down. SS"M" is the current cause célèbre in academia, and no one wants to appear un-Enlightened, so we all admire the emperor’s new clothes. The Meyers-Briggs NF personality type is greatly over-represented in teaching; it also demands constant change. Constant change is why you see a high correlation between NFs and liberal politics, politicaltypes.com/content/view/24/56.

An excerpt from THE LAWFUL DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE IN THE DOMINION OF CANADA

I don’t see how they can make that work, since there are apparently a number of contradictory statements. But that’s a discussion for a different thread.

---

What started as a demand for basic civil rights has mutated into a liberal demand to overturn the whole society, along with its traditions and norms, its standards and laws, its history and heroes.

 

[sedonaman]

I would quibble that the hatred of heterosexual institutions, and self-hatred by heterosexuals is already in fairly florid display.

Agreed, and thx for your kind words.

---

“Previous generations of social experimenters have caused unimaginable misery for millions of people. None of them have ever been held accountable.

 

[Lochias]

I just want to comment on one of the arguments given against gay marriage.

“4. It’s unnatural!”

The word “unnatural” means to me - something not natural. Something against nature.

Being in my 70’s, I also remember back during the civil rights era when that same word was used to defend segregation in parts of this country and later as an arguing point against interracial marriage.

A percentage of every country on the planet is homosexual, and has been throughout history.
There is homosexual behavior in animals as well.

My question is how can something that is natural in nature be “unnatural”?

I see it as just another form of prejudice that has to be overcome. And if we feel these people are “different” and should therefore be called to a different life than the rest of us because of how God made them…shame on us!

As soon as one male can get another male pregnant, you’ll have an argument. By your logic, sticking a knife into someone’s ribs is “perfectly natural”, too. Just because we as humans have the capability of doing something doesn’t make it natural.

And…forgive me my sarcasm, it’s been a long day…oh, the HORROR!!! That one person may be called to live one way, and another person in a different way! Won’t somebody think of the CHILDREN??!!!…

Difference in calling and serving God isn’t a bad thing.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Marriage is limited to more than just consenting heterosexual adults. If we allow gay marriage because gay people (most of them) can’t help who they are attracted too then we better let adults marry children if they are old enough to know what sex is and consent to it. I mean most pedophiles can’t help the fact they are strongly attracted to children (bare in mind the uncontrollable attraction is the only correlation I’m tieing between pedophilia and homosexuality, I’m not saying one leads to the other). Or for siblings who love one another who want to marry. We have laws in place to prevent that (and pedophilia) because it’s disgusting and unnatural. Well a couple decades ago the disordered attraction known as homosexuality was amongst these groups and rightly so. If we allow people who are disordered with homosexual inclinations to marry for the sole sake of appeasing their sense of equality, than we better open the doors for child-adult marriages and incestuous relationships as well. If not then we’re just being exclusive of other groups that should be “equally” protected just as the homosexuals were.

Very well stated.

Marriage is not a right and never has been. It is a privilege, and one has to meet certain obligations before a license to marry can be granted. The obligations have been that the prospective partners be not too closely related, of the right age, be mentally competent, not already married, and, until recently, be of the opposite sex. There always have been impediments to marriage.

Homosexuals are as free to marry as anyone else; as with everybody, it simply must be to someone of the opposite sex.

And, just because two people love each other is not an argument they should be married. What if it is father/daughter or mother/son, or brother/sister that love each other? Maybe grandfather/grandaughter? After all, it is just intergenerational sex. Why should we be prejudiced against that?

Or why not three people who love each other get married? Why limit it to just two people? Why not allow someone who is already married to get married at the same time to a third person?

So, the arguments used for gay marriage aren’t valid.

But, just because the arguments put up aren’t valid, maybe the impediment that the partners be of opposite sex be removed anyway? Perhaps two heterosexual men may want to get married for business and economic purposes?

 

[NeedImprovement]

. . . Won’t somebody think of the CHILDREN??!!!
. . .

Amen.

This is the precise area where the most damage is being wreaked by the homosexual agenda . It’s effect is gradual menticide on children , beginning with indoctrination of some as young as 4 or 5 years old - often without the knowledge and/or consent of their parents.

Thanks to select politicians and judges who, on this issue, never did manage to locate the coordinates for “spinal column” in their GPS’s , the state also becomes an accomplice in the menticide . . .

Normally, it should be quite difficult to imagine that these purportedly intelligent people in positions of authority would not have considered the children. That they wouldn’t have applied any forethought to what effect on the children, the consequences of kowtowing to the homosexual activists and enforcing their misguided whims with legislation would have , is more than perplexing. But then, abortion is now permitted by the state in many parts of the world, so how can we be surprised ?

The legislation to normalize active homosexuality frequently ends up getting wielded along with other concerted efforts which are aimed at forcing everyone to see the world through "gay-colored glasses".

Apparently, some of these same people in power are disoriented on at least one other issue : They’re confusing serving the common good, with protecting their own a**** (rhymes with “glasses”).

A lot of us need prayer.