What lead to gay marriage

[PetersKeys]

I myself have always believed the reason gay marriage has arisen is because society has allowed the moral fibers that encompass marriage to become loose and fall off. I have always believe this started with contraception and later no-fault divorce. Both which slowly eroded away the dignity and respect people had for marriage. Abortion and feminism landed the final blow to the moral fibers of marriage.

I believe the gay community took advantage of this “opening” so to speak. The moral fibers of marriage were weak and open. They took advantage of this opening under the same tactics that no-fault divorce and abortion did. Marriage was in such a state of shambles that people developed a seered conscious towards it.

If you put a frog in extremely hot water it will jump out immediately. However if you slowly turn on the heat, it will not recognize it and will burn to death. This is how I believe societies view has become towards marriage today. They have become so in-steeped by immorality that they are simply unable to recognize or comprehend the seriousness of gay marriage. In a society with already almost a 50% divorce rate a large amount of the majority simply cannot discern correctly anymore. If this issue of gay marriage had come up in the 1920s, when society still have a strong moral fiber around marriage, it would have been immediately rejected and condemned. But sadly today the generations have suffered from a slow “slow roasting” of immorality and are unable to recognize the stink of it anymore. Contraception was the seed, no-fault divorce the soil, abortion the water, and all 3 have laid the railway towards things like gay marriage, re-marriage, adultery, stds. The gay community sees this and they view this as an opening to push their agenda.

 

[buffalo]

Yup - this Pope knew it.

CASTI CONNUBII
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI ON CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE
TO THE VENERABLE BRETHREN, PATRIARCHS, PRIMATES, ARCHBISHOPS, BISHOPS, AND OTHER LOCAL ORDINARIES
ENJOYING PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE.

 

[portarica]

I myself have always believed the reason gay marriage has arisen is because society has allowed the moral fibers that encompass marriage to become loose and fall off. I have always believe this started with contraception and later no-fault divorce. Both which slowly eroded away the dignity and respect people had for marriage. Abortion and feminism landed the final blow to the moral fibers of marriage.

I believe the gay community took advantage of this “opening” so to speak. The moral fibers of marriage were weak and open. They took advantage of this opening under the same tactics that no-fault divorce and abortion did. Marriage was in such a state of shambles that people developed a seered conscious towards it.

If you put a frog in extremely hot water it will jump out immediately. However if you slowly turn on the heat, it will not recognize it and will burn to death. This is how I believe societies view has become towards marriage today. They have become so in-steeped by immorality that they are simply unable to recognize or comprehend the seriousness of gay marriage. In a society with already almost a 50% divorce rate a large amount of the majority simply cannot discern correctly anymore. If this issue of gay marriage had come up in the 1920s, when society still have a strong moral fiber around marriage, it would have been immediately rejected and condemned. But sadly today the generations have suffered from a slow “slow roasting” of immorality and are unable to recognize the stink of it anymore. Contraception was the seed, no-fault divorce the soil, abortion the water, and all 3 have laid the railway towards things like gay marriage, re-marriage, adultery, stds. The gay community sees this and they view this as an opening to push their agenda.

The gradual acceptance theory was wrong about frogs, does that make it wrong about people? snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.asp (among others)

Peace

 

[bkayw]

amazon.com/After-Ball-America-Conquer-Hatred/dp/0452264987

After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s (Plume)

"From the book flap: “Dismissing the movement’s outworn techniques in favor of carefully calculated public relations propaganda, AFTER THE BALL unveils the key psychological principles and national strategies that gays must follow…” “At the same time, Kirk and Madsen propose a clear-eyed agenda to reform gay culture…”

To sum up the book: Two Harvard-educated intellectuals, one of which worked in Advertising on Madison Avenue, devised an agenda, to use propaganda and turn the tide of America’s disregard and ambivalence for homosexuality by 180 degrees.

If you look around, you’ll see that it’s not just actors in Hollywood, but also many of your friends and neighbors who have embraced this propaganda, likely without their knowledge."

 

[St_Francis]

The gradual acceptance theory was wrong about frogs, does that make it wrong about people? snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.asp (among others)

Peace

As Snopes itself says, “Like a fable, the “boiled frog” anecdote serves its purpose whether or not it’s based on something that is literally true.”

Personally, I don’t think the activist homosexuals would have been able to progress this far had it not been for AIDS and their consequent need for health insurance.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I myself have always believed the reason gay marriage has arisen is because society has allowed the moral fibers that encompass marriage to become loose and fall off. I have always believe this started with contraception and later no-fault divorce. Both which slowly eroded away the dignity and respect people had for marriage. Abortion and feminism landed the final blow to the moral fibers of marriage.

I believe the gay community took advantage of this “opening” so to speak. The moral fibers of marriage were weak and open. They took advantage of this opening under the same tactics that no-fault divorce and abortion did. Marriage was in such a state of shambles that people developed a seered conscious towards it.

If you put a frog in extremely hot water it will jump out immediately. However if you slowly turn on the heat, it will not recognize it and will burn to death. This is how I believe societies view has become towards marriage today. They have become so in-steeped by immorality that they are simply unable to recognize or comprehend the seriousness of gay marriage. In a society with already almost a 50% divorce rate a large amount of the majority simply cannot discern correctly anymore. If this issue of gay marriage had come up in the 1920s, when society still have a strong moral fiber around marriage, it would have been immediately rejected and condemned. But sadly today the generations have suffered from a slow “slow roasting” of immorality and are unable to recognize the stink of it anymore. Contraception was the seed, no-fault divorce the soil, abortion the water, and all 3 have laid the railway towards things like gay marriage, re-marriage, adultery, stds. The gay community sees this and they view this as an opening to push their agenda.

The main thing was allowing ourselves to leave God out of any public discussion, and to decide as a society that shame was no longer relevant in our lives. There are some behaviors that are worthy of shame! Shame is from God, and tells us that our consciences are active and letting us know that we are breaking covenant! People used to be ashamed of going to a strip bar! They used to be ashamed of getting pregnant outside of marriage, ashamed of adultery, ashamed of looking at porn, ashamed of SIN!! Then came the Hippie Generation and they wanted to do whatever they wanted without impediment, so shame had to go. It was decided by - who knows - psychologists? that shame was unhealthy so just purge the feelings from your mind because you could have better SELF-ESTEEM without feeling ashamed!

I think we all need to be on our knees and take back our shame! God’s heart is broken because of all the sin we’ve been engaging in with no thought of Him.

Gay activism is part and parcel of all this societal sinning.

 

[NE_Catholic]

the 60’s

 

[DPMartin]

This may or may not apply, depending on one’s view.

Is it the Law (God’s Law)? Or is it the will to live? And since Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Law, and is the Truth the Way and the Life. Then the will to live is the acceptance of the fulfillment of the Law (Jesus Christ) by repentance. For Jesus will have Mercy.

God didn’t make man to be, a sinner. Therefore it is simple, if a man rejects what God has made the man to be, and the fulfillment therefore no matter what his own short comings might be in the fulfillment of what he is made to be, knowing the fulfillment of what he is made to be is available to him. Through repentance of what is not the fulfillment and accepting the fulfillment (Jesus Christ). Then why should those who accept the fulfillment and the teaching of the fulfillment in Christ share in the participation of those who reject it?

If one rejects what he is, calling it the will to live. He is a liar to himself and others at best. For the fulfillment of Life is the Life given. For Life is of God, therefore perfect, good, complete. Hence the fulfillment is of God, which He Gives.

Shall God the Father look at you and know you through Adam, or Jesus Christ, His fulfillment of all things. Hence the Mercy of God, to freely give the fulfillment, in the baptism of the Holy Spirit, that He see and know that which is of Himself (His Holiness) in you, and therefore be pleased through His Son.

And don’t let science try to fool you in their self important validation and justification of all things. For they serve their masters just the same, in a society that says, lives, and judges, that money makes right.

When you consider what Apostle Paul says about the reprobate mind they are treated no different then how they treat what God has made them, and given them to be, that they reject.

 

[DPMartin]

Look at creation (ether in Geneses, or around you) look at the Lord God’s relationship with man, and then look at Jesus Christ. It is the Power of God to give fulfillment according to His Will, through His Word. This is, the Light of men. Bless the Holy Jesus for His freedoms and Grace.

 

[edwest2]

As Snopes itself says, “Like a fable, the “boiled frog” anecdote serves its purpose whether or not it’s based on something that is literally true.”

Personally, I don’t think the activist homosexuals would have been able to progress this far had it not been for AIDS and their consequent need for health insurance.

Uh… what? Everybody needs health insurance. AIDS is not spread through the air or by casual contact. Find out why homosexuality was removed as a disorder from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual in 1973. It was a vote and no science was involved. Feminism is definitely linked to this - radical feminism.

God bless,
Ed

 

[rossum]

Personally, I don’t think the activist homosexuals would have been able to progress this far had it not been for AIDS and their consequent need for health insurance.

That might apply in the USA but not in other countries like Canada or most of Europe. Indeed it seems to me that gay marriage is more advanced in countries with state run healthcare than in the insurance based USA.

rossum

 

[phoooiee]

I think that there is another, more important factor that led gays to seek legalization of gay marriage. Gay people are treated hatefully so very often. Being treated with hatred usually leads a person to react by affirming that what they are doing is perfectly fine…and insisting that others agree.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I think that there is another, more important factor that led gays to seek legalization of gay marriage. Gay people are treated hatefully so very often. Being treated with hatred usually leads a person to react by affirming that what they are doing is perfectly fine…and insisting that others agree.

You may have an excellent point there.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I think that there is another, more important factor that led gays to seek legalization of gay marriage. Gay people are treated hatefully so very often. Being treated with hatred usually leads a person to react by affirming that what they are doing is perfectly fine…and insisting that others agree.

This didn’t happen so very often, in years past, and I believe that it is over-played by the press even now. Before the militant gay movement started up, most gay and lesbian folks just wanted to live their lives in peace and quiet, doing their jobs, etc. and fitting in as best they could. Not making their sexuality the number one thing about them that is relevant.

I believe that most still do feel that way, and want as normal a life as possible. Why would anyone have a reason to single them out for hateful treatment if they are not screaming for their rights or parading around in thongs and little else, daring us to object? Really, most people just want to live their lives and get along with everyone else.

I just think that is more propaganda and the hate is stirred up by the press.

 

[St_Francis]

Uh… what? Everybody needs health insurance. AIDS is not spread through the air or by casual contact. Find out why homosexuality was removed as a disorder from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual in 1973. It was a vote and no science was involved. Feminism is definitely linked to this - radical feminism.

God bless,
Ed

People with a pre-existing condition found it difficult to get insurance, esp if they were too sick to work; if they were “married,” they could be put on their “spouse”'s insurance.

I know about Stonewall and all that other stuff; I’m just saying that it was a fairly minor revolution until the issue of AIDS and health insurance came up.

 

[St_Francis]

That might apply in the USA but not in other countries like Canada or most of Europe. Indeed it seems to me that gay marriage is more advanced in countries with state run healthcare than in the insurance based USA.

rossum

I was under the impression that the push for homosexual marriage began here, but I could be wrong, as I was here and not there

 

[rossum]

I was under the impression that the push for homosexual marriage began here, but I could be wrong, as I was here and not there

I have the same problem, being ‘there’ rather than ‘here’. No doubt at some point a historian will look back and put together the whole story from both sides of the pond.

rossum

 

[TheRealJuliane]

People with a pre-existing condition found it difficult to get insurance, esp if they were too sick to work; if they were “married,” they could be put on their “spouse”'s insurance.

I know about Stonewall and all that other stuff; I’m just saying that it was a fairly minor revolution until the issue of AIDS and health insurance came up.

You’re right on that point, and it wasn’t just the pre-existing conditions, it was the fact that many long-time lovers were kept out of making decisions with and for their partners when the AIDS epidemic was at its zenith. Gay men were dying in such numbers then that there was a lot of sympathy for them, and outrage that their erstwhile spouses would be kept away from their bedsides by unaccepting family members. I totally agree that is wrong and very hurtful.

But, as usual, the answer is not any form of government intervention such as sanctioning “gay marriage.” This is a human problem of “hate the sin, hate the sinner,” and would require a change of heart in individuals, not a change in the entire society

 

[St_Francis]

You’re right on that point, and it wasn’t just the pre-existing conditions, it was the fact that many long-time lovers were kept out of making decisions with and for their partners when the AIDS epidemic was at its zenith. Gay men were dying in such numbers then that there was a lot of sympathy for them, and outrage that their erstwhile spouses would be kept away from their bedsides by unaccepting family members. I totally agree that is wrong and very hurtful.

But, as usual, the answer is not any form of government intervention such as sanctioning “gay marriage.” This is a human problem of “hate the sin, hate the sinner,” and would require a change of heart in individuals, not a change in the entire society

Yes, we could have strengthened rules regarding allowing the patient to decide who could visit, and maybe have penalties for fighting wills. We now have the ability to choose who will make medical decisions for us, which is a good thing. But all of these are changes which would not apply *just *to homosexuals but to everyone.

It is unfortunate that there are bad apples in every barrel, not just this one or that one.

 

[phoooiee]

This didn’t happen so very often, in years past, and I believe that it is over-played by the press even now. Before the militant gay movement started up, most gay and lesbian folks just wanted to live their lives in peace and quiet, doing their jobs, etc. and fitting in as best they could. Not making their sexuality the number one thing about them that is relevant.

I believe that most still do feel that way, and want as normal a life as possible. Why would anyone have a reason to single them out for hateful treatment if they are not screaming for their rights or parading around in thongs and little else, daring us to object? Really, most people just want to live their lives and get along with everyone else.

I just think that is more propaganda and the hate is stirred up by the press.

I think it’s easy for people to act hatefully toward others for any reason…and sin begets sin…let us all offer a prayer that we can learn to treat all, even sinners, with the utmost of kindness and compassion.

Hail Mary, full of grace.
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou amongst women,
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary,
Mother of God,
pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death. Amen.