The ultimate goal of redefinition of marriage?

[CarmelJerome]

In C.S. Lewis’ “That Hideous Strength”, Mark, the young teacher being lured into the demonic think tank N.I.C.E., asks each member of the Institute what their goal is. He gets the most unblinking answer from the Italian professor Filistrato, who tells him that his hope u s that the whole business of human procreation will be eliminated in favor of laboratory procreation.
Reading the novel last Fall, it hit me that this is the reason that the whole matter of redefining marriage is being pushed: not only because the state finds it easier to manage atomized individuals lacking any deep roots in family or fidelity to one’s home in general, but because the corporations who have invested in IVF and genetic manipulation simply want every human baby to be produced by their technology, very ugh like the companies that sell seed that does not produce further fertile seed. The goal, which many of the proponents, like the employees of N.I.C.E. don’t think about, is placing the whole fut ire of the human race in the hands of technicians and Pluto rats who employ them. Linked to this is not only the redefinition of marriage but the parallel attack on the power of Catholic authorities to have Catholic schools teaching true moral doctrines about the Creator and His creation. Along with both has gone the assault on getting children adopted by a mother and father, rather than by faux parents.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

In C.S. Lewis’ “That Hideous Strength”, Mark, the young teacher being lured into the demonic think tank N.I.C.E., asks each member of the Institute what their goal is. He gets the most unblinking answer from the Italian professor Filistrato, who tells him that his hope u s that the whole business of human procreation will be eliminated in favor of laboratory procreation.
Reading the novel last Fall, it hit me that this is the reason that the whole matter of redefining marriage is being pushed: not only because the state finds it easier to manage atomized individuals lacking any deep roots in family or fidelity to one’s home in general, but because the corporations who have invested in IVF and genetic manipulation simply want every human baby to be produced by their technology, very ugh like the companies that sell seed that does not produce further fertile seed. The goal, which many of the proponents, like the employees of N.I.C.E. don’t think about, is placing the whole fut ire of the human race in the hands of technicians and Pluto rats who employ them. Linked to this is not only the redefinition of marriage but the parallel attack on the power of Catholic authorities to have Catholic schools teaching true moral doctrines about the Creator and His creation. Along with both has gone the assault on getting children adopted by a mother and father, rather than by faux parents.

Creepy. This would make a good science fiction story.

 

[JimG]

Yes, I can see it coming. Human reproduction is too important to be left up to individual humans. It must be highly regulated and occur only in baby factories run by highly paid technicians and quality control. Having babies on your own is just as distasteful as allowing humans to grow their own food!

Humans can have sex, but babies must only from the factory.

 

[AyJSimon]

How does the government expanding its definition of marriage get us any closer to a world where all pregnancies are produced by technology?

 

[JimG]

How does the government expanding its definition of marriage get us any closer to a world where all pregnancies are produced by technology?

At least one gay marriage advocate has said that gay marriage is only the first step. The ultimate goal is the abolition of marriage. It is, she said, an institution which should not exist.

Contraception has already divorced children from sex. It has de-linked babies from marriage. It has enabled same sex marriage, which merely makes marriage ultimately meaningless and disposable. Already reproductive technologies are replacing the usual means of reproduction. I can see that trend continuing.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

And don’t forget that the technological management of reproduction also includes:

a) The displacement of mothers milk with synthesized replacements, simultaneously displacing the role of breasts to being objects for pleasure only

and, somewhat more seriously

b) the promotion of the destruction of naturally conceived human life in terms of increasingly casual attitudes to (and horrifying year-on-year increase in) the murder of unborn children

 

[svid2]

Pax Christi.

Distraction from God’s will, from natural law, from true Church teaching is this:

Souls in hell.

God spare us all.

 

[beleg]

I think that for most people who want to redefine marriage, they simply want homosexuals to be able to marry. But as soon as you pull out one thread, the whole tapestry begins to unravel.

I don’t think that government control of procreation is a goal. Could it be a reasonable conclusion to this whole sordid affair? Possibly in the long run, if we’re not careful and turn things around soon.

 

[MacBP]

I think that for most people who want to redefine marriage, they simply want homosexuals to be able to marry. But as soon as you pull out one thread, the whole tapestry begins to unravel.

I think it’s important to note that same-sex marriage is so widely accepted, in part, because the traditional definition of marriage was already gone. 12 years ago, before gay-marriage was the cause of the day, people still thought that marriage was a semi-permanent property contract between two people for the purposes of declaring the strength of one’s feelings. That definition is not one that would preclude the possibility of same-sex marriage; consequently, we can same-sex marriage does not re-define marriage so much as it recognizes what it already there.

 

[Rau]

How does the government expanding its definition of marriage get us any closer to a world where all pregnancies are produced by technology?

It doesn’t get us there, but it does get us closer.

SSM advocates argue that such a couple has the right to form a new family, including through conception of a child and in fact would argue that this a perfectly natural thing. After all, how could one discriminate against this couple?!

Conceiving a child by one or other member of a SSM relies on technology, and so serves to add to acceptance of the view that it is “perfectly reasonable” for babies to be “acquired” through technological means.

Of course, it is a small step toward the end-point hypothesized in that earlier post, but that is the direction.

 

[Rau]

I think it’s important to note that same-sex marriage is so widely accepted, in part, because the traditional definition of marriage was already gone. 12 years ago, before gay-marriage was the cause of the day, people still thought that marriage was a semi-permanent property contract between two people for the purposes of declaring the strength of one’s feelings. That definition is not one that would preclude the possibility of same-sex marriage; consequently, we can same-sex marriage does not re-define marriage so much as it recognizes what it already there.

When did an intimate sexual relationship between 2 men move from something of a private nature, not interfered with by the State, to something to be endorsed and celebrated by the State when in a committed relationship? For that is a prerequisite to SSM achieving its status.

 

[Pat_M]

Wasn’t it in the novel Brave New World where children in the future were typically produced in a factory? It has been a long time since I read it, but I remember one character who somehow escapes from “civilization” and has a child the natural way, sort of “in the wild”, and everybody looks upon that in horror, as if it is so disgusting.

Honestly it is amazing how far-sighed that author was! I guess that we are in fact headed in that direction. You can already see it with the rapid increase in approval of famous gay men like Elton John paying a surrogate to gestate his baby, and then more or less withdrawing from her maternal role, acting basically as a human incubator. And the most remarkable thing is how fast and how thoroughly our collective social consciousness has changed, and come to think that is a good thing to do. Note how outraged Elton John was during the recent implication that what he did was wrong. It’s like you’re not even allowed to say that what he did is not the right thing to do. That is very alarming, and I don’t think it bodes well for the future, unless we make some course changes soon.

I don’t think most people have this as a “goal” though. Most people have just sort of thoughtlessly accepted the idea that homosexuality has to be treated exactly the same as heterosexuality, as a kind of new “equal rights” concept. The media and Hollywood and TV has been very very very effective in “catechizing” our culture. I think adhering to our Christian faith is the only antidote to this creepy groupthink.

 

[Midwest88]

In C.S. Lewis’ “That Hideous Strength”, Mark, the young teacher being lured into the demonic think tank N.I.C.E., asks each member of the Institute what their goal is. He gets the most unblinking answer from the Italian professor Filistrato, who tells him that his hope u s that the whole business of human procreation will be eliminated in favor of laboratory procreation.
Reading the novel last Fall, it hit me that this is the reason that the whole matter of redefining marriage is being pushed: not only because the state finds it easier to manage atomized individuals lacking any deep roots in family or fidelity to one’s home in general, but because the corporations who have invested in IVF and genetic manipulation simply want every human baby to be produced by their technology, very ugh like the companies that sell seed that does not produce further fertile seed. The goal, which many of the proponents, like the employees of N.I.C.E. don’t think about, is placing the whole fut ire of the human race in the hands of technicians and Pluto rats who employ them. Linked to this is not only the redefinition of marriage but the parallel attack on the power of Catholic authorities to have Catholic schools teaching true moral doctrines about the Creator and His creation. Along with both has gone the assault on getting children adopted by a mother and father, rather than by faux parents.

The ultimate goal it make what is natural and tradition a laughable joke to be mocked and looked down upon. Why? Because those that want “equality” feel that society has cheated them, and what is rightfully theirs should be obtained. They will gloat and act smug when they get what they want because deep inside they are children filled with bitterness, hatred and sadness. This is their revenge on people, on a society, that they care not to know because they are not “enlightened” as the so-called “progressives.” Notice how they, the “progressives,” tend to say “Deal with it,” when something is favoring their way?

 

[Pat_M]

When did an intimate sexual relationship between 2 men move from something of a private nature, not interfered with by the State, to something to be endorsed and celebrated by the State when in a committed relationship? For that is a prerequisite to SSM achieving its status.

It started with gay characters making their way into culture, such as in Will and Grace. Also the AIDS crisis, paradoxically, was a great springboard for gays to be more accepted because they started out as people you felt sorry for, having AIDS and all that.

I note how careful the homosexual lobby has always been about how they are portrayed in the media, what phrases the news reporters use to describe homosexual events, etc. THIS is how they have advanced in culture. By carefully crafting this phony image in all public communications. It’s called propaganda, and it obviously works.

 

[Pat_M]

I think it’s important to note that same-sex marriage is so widely accepted, in part, because the traditional definition of marriage was already gone. 12 years ago, before gay-marriage was the cause of the day, people still thought that marriage was a semi-permanent property contract between two people for the purposes of declaring the strength of one’s feelings. That definition is not one that would preclude the possibility of same-sex marriage; consequently, we can same-sex marriage does not re-define marriage so much as it recognizes what it already there.

What you say here applies to certain segments of society, most notably Hollywood actresses and actors and other celebrities who change spouses every few years. But it certainly was not the way the average American looked at marriage, either 12 years ago or now.

SSM does not recognize what is already there. It builds on the odd liberal mindset that if something is already damaged, instead of fixing it, we just lower our standards so that broken is the new normal, and then just go ahead and make it even more broken with the goal of doing or getting whatever we want.

It’s the same mindset the liberals use on debt. Oh we’ll never pay it off anyway so why not go a few more billion in debt. Oh the divorce rate is already high so why not throw homosexual parenting into the mix as well. That way we can indulge all our irrational liberal fantasies and pay little to no attention to problems we are making worse and worse, with the excuse that oh it was already broken when I started.

 

[MacBP]

When did an intimate sexual relationship between 2 men move from something of a private nature, not interfered with by the State, to something to be endorsed and celebrated by the State when in a committed relationship? For that is a prerequisite to SSM achieving its status.

True, and that’s a fairly recent development; however, I would argue that many, even most, heterosexual marriages were about intimate sexual relationships between 2 people to something endorsed and celebrated by the State when in a committed relationship. Therefor having two men or two women instead of one of each doesn’t change the fundamental nature of what many, or even most, people think marriage was.

What you say here applies to certain segments of society, most notably Hollywood actresses and actors and other celebrities who change spouses every few years. But it certainly was not the way the average American looked at marriage, either 12 years ago or now.

SSM does not recognize what is already there. It builds on the odd liberal mindset that if something is already damaged, instead of fixing it, we just lower our standards so that broken is the new normal, and then just go ahead and make it even more broken with the goal of doing or getting whatever we want.

It’s the same mindset the liberals use on debt. Oh we’ll never pay it off anyway so why not go a few more billion in debt. Oh the divorce rate is already high so why not throw homosexual parenting into the mix as well. That way we can indulge all our irrational liberal fantasies and pay little to no attention to problems we are making worse and worse, with the excuse that oh it was already broken when I started.

Respectfully, I would disagree. Let’s look at a traditional western idea of marriage versus the current definition of marriage.

Traditional

A permanent union between a man and a woman, formed by God, for the purpose of unity between the spouses and the creation and education of a family.

Modern

A semi-permanent union between two people formed by the state for the purposes of publicly declaring one’s love, distributing property, and entering into a long term relationship.

With the exception of dropping the gender identities of the spouses involved, most of the changes between the traditional meaning and the modern meeting were already put in place. No-fault divorce and remarriage transformed marriage from a permanent union to a semi-permanent union. Marriage ceased to a vocation oriented towards creating a family with the rise of childless couples, contraception, and marriage-less families. The spiritual dimension of marriage fell with the decline of organized religion. All of these shifts in the culture surrounding marriage took place well before the rise of same-sex unions.

Let me give you a anecdote that may support my point. I was speaking to a few young people about what they felt the purpose of marriage was. Now, I live in Canada, and these individuals were about 20, so they have been living with same-sex marriage for years although they are old enough to remember a time before. For the most part they couldn’t think of one, other than marking an important milestone in their relationship, and many would have preferred to avoid marriage entirely if possible.That wasn’t because they were players or didn’t want to start a family – both of them did — but rather neither of them recognized that marriage was in any way connected with raising a family. Moreover, after introducing them to a more traditional outlook towards the purpose of marriage none of them had ever heard of it. It wasn’t just that they disagreed, or has dismissed it, but rather this was the the first time any of them had heard anyone describe marriage in that way.

The point is that marriage was re-defined, and traditional marriage forgotten and/or abandoned, well before same-sex marriage become thrust into the public eye.

 

[frobert]

At least one gay marriage advocate has said that gay marriage is only the first step. The ultimate goal is the abolition of marriage. It is, she said, an institution which should not exist.

Contraception has already divorced children from sex. It has de-linked babies from marriage. It has enabled same sex marriage, which merely makes marriage ultimately meaningless and disposable. Already reproductive technologies are replacing the usual means of reproduction. I can see that trend continuing.

So one unnamed ultra radical speaks for all activist. Hmmmmmmm, by the same reasoning one ultra right wing radical speaks for all anti same sex unions.

There is no need to complicate reproduction with science fiction when over 40% of all new births in the US are by unwed mothers. I think the figure for Europe is 39%.

 

[frobert]

When did an intimate sexual relationship between 2 men move from something of a private nature, not interfered with by the State, to something to be endorsed and celebrated by the State when in a committed relationship? For that is a prerequisite to SSM achieving its status.

You are partially correct a marriage license can be considered as public approval of the marriage but it is the spouses that celebrate the marriage not the state. Opposite sex couples didn’t loose anything with the event of same sex marriage except perhaps exclusivity.

 

[jtauke]

At least one gay marriage advocate has said that gay marriage is only the first step. The ultimate goal is the abolition of marriage. It is, she said, an institution which should not exist.

Contraception has already divorced children from sex. It has de-linked babies from marriage. It has enabled same sex marriage, which merely makes marriage ultimately meaningless and disposable. Already reproductive technologies are replacing the usual means of reproduction. I can see that trend continuing.

Source? Not to mention the words of one “advocate” cannot be applied to others willy nilly,

 

[JimG]

Source? Not to mention the words of one “advocate” cannot be applied to others willy nilly,

The source is LGBT activist Masha Gessen, who said this:

“I agree that we should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it is a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. . . . Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there, because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change, and again, I don’t think it should exist.”

Quoted in this article.

I agree she does not speak for all advocates of same sex marriage. But I do think she recognizes the trend, and is on the leading edge of it.

I have said it before, but I’ll say it again. It was not homosexuals who destroyed marriage. That began with heterosexuals accepting contraception, then falling in line with the sexual revolution. The best documentation of the results, I think, can be found in Eberle’s book “Adam and Eve After the Pill,” but a short recounting of the process is also found in this article.