Why "Marriage Equality" really means "DEATH TO MARRIAGE"

[Jaysuitical]

I’ve hoped to find a very direct way to express what’s at issue in the attempt by gay activist groups & their allies to elevate the legal status of homosexual & lesbian couples to marriage in law.

After night prayer, it was clear that the real intent of the movement is hidden behind the apparent value placed on marriage. But recall that this was exactly the same community which, not very long ago, used the term “breeders” to * denigrate marriage and fruitful married couples to the status of breeding livestock who were going to provide the children which same-sex couples would raise*.

The sexual revolution from the start had marriage as its primary target, constantly assailing it as a form of slavery for women, hypocrisy, and destructive of freedom. These also were the hallmarks of every single “Pride Parade”; and anyone who ever had the misfortune to see how wives who had unknowingly married gay men were treated by their husband’s partners in vice knows exactly what the real feelings of gay activists are for the participants in real marriage.

Marriage has already been eroded by the secular laws which treat it as a temporary contract and not as a sacrament instituted from the start of human existence on earth. “Marriage Equality” is actually aimed at a death blow to what remains of attachment to sanctity & chaste & fidelity in marriage, to what remains of marriage as a sanctuary & the haven in which children can be raised.

In every aspect, “Marriage Equality” is the sum & crown of the Culture of Death that Blessed John Paul II so thoroughly analyzed in Evangelium Vitae : such laws when enacted will institute a form of drag marriage, which, like drag which satirizes women’s beauty & heterosexual desire of men as nothing more than a cosmetic-fashion enhanced performance, would be nothing but a continual profanation from the very places where marriages ought to be honored.

This is slogan, “Marriage Equality,” is the Great Lie, the great misrepresentation, hiding the actual feelings of same-sex couples for the very thing which they pretend now to respect.

 

[Suslar]

Well said.
This group now wanting “marriage equality” was the same group who said “it’s nothing but a piece of paper” in the 70’s and 80’s. They couldn’t break marriage from the outside, so now they want to implode it from within?

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Well, some same-sex couples might want marriage for real rather than simply to undermine the institution (and I don’t really understand why they’d want to do that, anyway). I think attitudes have changed. As attitudes have changed towards marriage, and homosexuals start to claim that they actually want married relationships, lots of younger homosexuals actually seem to genuinely want it.

Obviously, though that doesn’t necessarily make homosexual marriage right in anyway, and I don’t believe homosexual marriage would help marriage at all, considering how damaged it seems to be already, but I’m not convinced homosexuals are as sly as they’re being portrayed.

 

[FightingFat]

I think that possibly the best way of understanding what is problematic with this measure is by understanding that by moving to a definition of marriage that no longer requires sexual difference, we will, over time, ultimately decouple the definition of marriage from family life altogether. I doubt that this change will be immediate. It will be gradual, as perceptions of what marriage is and is for shift. But we can already see the foundations for this shift in the debate about same-sex marriage. Those who argue for a change in the law do so by saying that surely marriage is just about love between two people and so is of nobody else’s business. Once the concept of marriage has become established in social consciousness as an entirely private matter about love and commitment alone, without any link to family, I fear that it will accelerate changes already occurring that makes family life more unstable. (I should add, that I also suspect it will make marriage ultimately seem irrelevant. After all, how long before gay people begin to say, as many straight couples of my own generation have begun to say, “if marriage is just about love, why would I need a piece of paper to prove it?”).

I’ve written more on this here.

 

[Suslar]

As long as it is possible that the US government could redefine the word marriage, wouldn’t it just be simpler to use different words to begin with? I mean, for everyone (not just homosexual relationships). What if “civil union” is the legal, civil binding of 2 people, and “marriage” is the religious covenant? “Divorce” then rightly pertains only to “civil union” as nothing can end a covenant marriage.

 

[mountee]

The OP has made some very valid points but I have to admit that I do know several SS couples and what Regular Atheist has said “Well, some same-sex couples might want marriage for real rather than simply to undermine the institution” is also a valid statement. We should stick with our doctrine when we enter these discussions rather than trying to judge the reasons why someone would want to be in a SSM. The reasons many people want "marriage " have to do with fairness in their minds. I read a story about a woman in a SS relationship for over 30 years and when her partner died she had to pay ridiculous amounts of tax over her inheritance that she would have avoided if they were legally married. I do not agree with the situation but some of the feelings are based on these types of issues and that is why the public is jumping on the bandwagon. As Catholics we need to stick with our Church teachings and not muddle the issue by judging their motives, its the only way to avoid criticism for our beliefs.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I’ve hoped to find a very direct way to express what’s at issue in the attempt by gay activist groups & their allies to elevate the legal status of homosexual & lesbian couples to marriage in law.

I am allied with no “gay activist groups.” I am a longtime proponent of SSM. I find the implications and accusations in your post very offensive. Mostly, I wonder how anyone can take a group of people, single out a bit of public rhetoric that does not represent majority thinking, try to attribute it to every member of that group and anyone who agrees with them. How is this not trying to stir up hate and resentment against a large group of people. How is this not sin?

I have never heard anyone refer to a straight person as a “breeder” who was not a straight person. Not heard it from a gay person. But then, my gay friends tend to be educated, informed, charitable and well-bred and are, for the most part, married.

No one can destroy Sacramental marriage but those who believe in it. By not conflating this with a civil contract, you only strengthen the concept. Straight people have done more to destroy marriage, IMO, than any gay persons can possibly do who wish to be part of that. It was straight people who invented “serial monogamy,” “no fault” divorce, absent fathers and marriage as a “piece of paper.”

Gay people are saying, “This is something of great value, we will dedicate ourselves to getting this thing of great value.” They already have the legal status and rights with civil union. Wanting marriage, means they value that.

I fear for everyone who wants to lump together individuals into “dangerous” groups. They aren’t the danger.

 

[gardenswithkids]

… The reasons many people want "marriage " have to do with fairness in their minds. I read a story about a woman in a SS relationship for over 30 years and when her partner died she had to pay ridiculous amounts of tax over her inheritance that she would have avoided if they were legally married. I…

Taxes. You know what they say about death and taxes.

You’ve possilbly identified just about the only tax that some politicians want to lower. They could push for a real reform inheritance tax laws then instead of pushing for the redefinition of marriage. Unfair inheritance taxes affect far more than gay couples! For example: same sex couples who are related to each other and not sexually active. Think of elderly sisters who live together or an elderly mother living with her adult child–inheritance taxes affect them too and can leave the survivor needing to sell the family home!

Some people complain about the wealthy not paying their “fair share” of taxes–and then they go and turn around and push for laws so that wealthy homosexuals will be able to pass on their multi-million dollar estates to non-family members under the guise of “marriage”.

Address that as an issue of tax fairness and under tax law, not marriage laws.

 

[marymary1975]

I have never heard anyone refer to a straight person as a “breeder” who was not a straight person. Not heard it from a gay person. But then, my gay friends tend to be educated, informed, charitable and well-bred and are, for the most part, married.

No one can destroy Sacramental marriage but those who believe in it. By not conflating this with a civil contract, you only strengthen the concept. Straight people have done more to destroy marriage, IMO, than any gay persons can possibly do who wish to be part of that. It was straight people who invented “serial monogamy,” “no fault” divorce, absent fathers and marriage as a “piece of paper.”

Gay people are saying, “This is something of great value, we will dedicate ourselves to getting this thing of great value.” .

You are not looking at the entire picture, you are only looking at the final pages of a book with many chapters. Your second paragraph is exactly what the OP is talking about and you don’t see it. You are blaming straights for the failure of marriage but you are missing the fact that there is anti- life movement which started about 50 years ago and which is exactly the same movement that is right now pushing for gay marriage and is even using the same techniques and the same story. 50 years ago that same movement started pushing for no fault divorce, they came out with multiple studies indicating that children of divorced parents were better adjusted, insisted that no fault divorce was a fundamental right and pretty much used exactly the same arguments used now for gay marriage and just like now, back 50 years ago anyone who was against no fault divorce was called a bigot, etc. Then the same movement started promoting radical feminism, they started painting marriage as slavery for women, and just like the OP indicates they kept brainwashing people all the way into the 80 to cohabitation, that marriage was not necessary, that it was a piece of paper etc. That most marriages end in divorce so is better not get married, etc. And from there we have ended with the promotion of gay marriage.

Maybe you individually are not intending to promote anything but you are falling into the brainwashing system. You are accusing the straights but you are similar to those straight people you are accusing in the sense that the reason why they destroyed marriage was because they fell into the brainwash. They ate the lie that no fault divorce was a women’s right and they ate the lie that children of divorce do better. You are doing the same thing eating the same lie just on a different topic. So while yes, those people have responsability for falling into the lie, they did it because a movement pushed them into believing in it and is the same thing we see now. Same story repeating over and over.

Now I do believe as someone else mentioned stated before that not all gays are directly and openly into destroying marriage and many would be doing it for personal reasons but where we don’t agree is denying that there is s movement trying to push gay marriage into people’s throats: it is being taught in elementary schools behind the parent’s back (if it is only about gays believing in marriage then why do you have to indoctrinate children about it),.there have been several studies published stating that lesbian women are superior parents than heterosexual couples (again if all you want is just to live happily ever after why do you need to push into society that heterosexual are inferior parents and all kids should be raised by lesbians), the entire concept of if you don’t agree with us you are a bigot, all the Cases in Court just because someone due to religions reasons didn’t want to photograph or host a SSM, etc. All this is clear indication that there is more to “let’s give the right to everybody” and while you personally may not have the intention of destroying heterosexual marriage you are buying into the movement.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I am allied with no “gay activist groups.” I am a longtime proponent of SSM. I find the implications and accusations in your post very offensive. Mostly, I wonder how anyone can take a group of people, single out a bit of public rhetoric that does not represent majority thinking, try to attribute it to every member of that group and anyone who agrees with them. How is this not trying to stir up hate and resentment against a large group of people. How is this not sin?

I have never heard anyone refer to a straight person as a “breeder” who was not a straight person. Not heard it from a gay person. But then, my gay friends tend to be educated, informed, charitable and well-bred and are, for the most part, married.

No one can destroy Sacramental marriage but those who believe in it. By not conflating this with a civil contract, you only strengthen the concept. Straight people have done more to destroy marriage, IMO, than any gay persons can possibly do who wish to be part of that. It was straight people who invented “serial monogamy,” “no fault” divorce, absent fathers and marriage as a “piece of paper.”

Gay people are saying, “This is something of great value, we will dedicate ourselves to getting this thing of great value.” They already have the legal status and rights with civil union. Wanting marriage, means they value that.

I fear for everyone who wants to lump together individuals into “dangerous” groups. They aren’t the danger.

Studies have shown gay marriages last for a shorter duration than heterosexual marriages. Research from Stockholm University found that in Norway, male male marriages are 50% more likely to end in divorce than heterosexual marriages, female female marriages are 167% more likely to end in divorce than heterosexual marriages. In Sweden, divorce risk for male gay ‘unions’ is 50% higher than for heterosexual marriages, divorce risk for female gay ‘unions’ is nearly double that. Marriage is supposed to a thing that homosexuals are fighting for yet when it homosexual marriage is available they divorce at a higher rate than heterosexuals

Up until to the 1970s cohabitation, single parenthood and divorce was discouraged. Then advocates started promoting about the need to eliminate stigma from single parenthood, cohabitation and divorce and there were people that warned the fall out from liberalizing attitudes and laws would lead to a terrible fall out in society but those voices were mocked or ignored just as opponents to redefining marriage are being mocked or ignored now. Answer to heterosexual divorce is not redefine marriage but to strengthen marriage by educating people on the harm divorce does to society and asking legislators to put an end to no fault divorce laws and

 

[CJECulver]

And from there we have ended with the promotion of gay marriage.

Ended? Not IMHO. Yes, as you’ve pointed out, SSM is a continuation of trends that began a half century or more ago. But SSM is just another milepost along the journey.

By removing family from the equation, by refocusing the discussion of marriage solely on the feelings of the partners involved, and by coupling this new definition with the prevailing cultural attitude that defines all morality based on “consent”, we’ve all but guaranteed that the discussion won’t end with SSM.

Every argument put forth in support of SSM is equally applicable to polygamous, polyandrous and polyamorous relationships; I’ve yet to hear any SSM proponent provide a coherent rationale as to why it’s not. If any two consenting adults, regardless of sex, are permitted to marry, how are we to say no to three?

(Seven years ago, the Norwegian courts began approving polygamous marriages, shortly after Norway legalized SSM. And just recently, a Norwegian court upheld the rights of a polyamorous marriage – in this case, two women and a man, each of whom was married to the other two.)

And if three, why not four?

Once marriage is reduced to a contract which any possible configuration of consenting adults can enter into (and exit from) for any reason, I look for the government to eventually realize it no longer has a compelling interest in safeguarding the institution at all; shortly after that realization, the government will exit the marriage business entirely (already, some SSM proponents are asking what business it is of the government’s at all).

At that point, marriage will become the exclusive domain of religious institutions and any SSC wishing to marry will be forced to search out a temple, synagogue, mosque or church willing to cater to its desires.

Does all that seem far-fetched? Pro-polygamy and pro-polyamory websites have already sprung up, arguing the merits of their causes. In Utah, some jurisdictions have stopped prosecuting polygamy cases on the grounds of consent. Many SSM proponents tosh the polygamy question, calling it fear-mongering; however, others have already come out in support.

I’m interested in hearing a coherent argument as to why polygamy and polyamory are not the next logical steps after SSM.

 

[Monkey1976]

Gay people are saying, “This is something of great value, we will dedicate ourselves to getting this thing of great value.” They already have the legal status and rights with civil union. Wanting marriage, means they value that.

I would value the tax credit Alaskan residents can receive. If I want to claim it, I have to be a resident of Alaska. The accepted definition of “residency” - similar to the underlying definition of marriage as only existing between male and female until AD 2000 - has stood unchanged for the entire span of human civilization.

Is it discriminatory or unfair that I cannot claim the legal benefits of Alaskan residency simply because I would not want to live in Alaska?

 

[marymary1975]

How can there possibly be proper studies and stats on this when same-sex marriage has only been around for a few years? It is too early to have a good reading on it.

Besides, it’s not a fully accepted structure yet–and that affects the people in the study.
Once it is…then that is the time to take the temperature on how successful it is. Until then, it’s only half in place and those involved would not feel very stable because they are not getting a stable embrace from all around them.

.

This is not correct. Gay marriage has been legal for over a decade in many places in Europe and all Scandinavian countries and over there is widely accepted. In fact, in Norway and Denmark it has been legal since approximately 1992 or 1993. Maybe in the US is only half in place but in Scandinavia all the effects of gay marriage are quite clear.

 

[marymary1975]

Ended? Not IMHO. Yes, as you’ve pointed out, SSM is a continuation of trends that began a half century or more ago. But SSM is just another milepost along the journey.

By removing family from the equation, by refocusing the discussion of marriage solely on the feelings of the partners involved, and by coupling this new definition with the prevailing cultural attitude that defines all morality based on “consent”, we’ve all but guaranteed that the discussion won’t end with SSM.

Every argument put forth in support of SSM is equally applicable to polygamous, polyandrous and polyamorous relationships; I’ve yet to hear any SSM proponent provide a coherent rationale as to why it’s not. If any two consenting adults, regardless of sex, are permitted to marry, how are we to say no to three?

(Seven years ago, the Norwegian courts began approving polygamous marriages, shortly after Norway legalized SSM. And just recently, a Norwegian court upheld the rights of a polyamorous marriage – in this case, two women and a man, each of whom was married to the other two.)

And if three, why not four?

Once marriage is reduced to a contract which any possible configuration of consenting adults can enter into (and exit from) for any reason, I look for the government to eventually realize it no longer has a compelling interest in safeguarding the institution at all; shortly after that realization, the government will exit the marriage business entirely (already, some SSM proponents are asking what business it is of the government’s at all).

At that point, marriage will become the exclusive domain of religious institutions and any SSC wishing to marry will be forced to search out a temple, synagogue, mosque or church willing to cater to its desires.

Does all that seem far-fetched? Pro-polygamy and pro-polyamory websites have already sprung up, arguing the merits of their causes. In Utah, some jurisdictions have stopped prosecuting polygamy cases on the grounds of consent. Many SSM proponents tosh the polygamy question, calling it fear-mongering; however, others have already come out in support.

I’m interested in hearing a coherent argument as to why polygamy and polyamory are not the next logical steps after SSM.

Oh yes, you are right, this doesn’t end with gay marriage, this will continue with polygamy and much more. Actually when I use ended is because gay marriage is what is going on at the present time so I am pretty much only going from past to today, but yes everything that has happened in countries like Norway, legalization of polygamy, the majority of children being born in single mother households, marriage rates extremely low, etc. is exactly what is waiting to happen in the US.

 

[marymary1975]

I think it was more the heterosexual couples who began to pair up at that time and felt they could love each other and have families and be devoted to each other for their entire lives without that “piece of paper” – and many did and are still doing just that.

Just like I explained before, it wasn’t the “heterosexual couples” those heterosexual people fell into the lie that was being promoted at the moment that was that marriage wasn’t necessary and was only a piece of paper. I can assure that if it wouldn’t have been an entire movement selling the cohabitation idea to those couples they wouldn’t have done it, and now the same people who were promoting cohabitation are all of a sudden of a mind that marriage is a human right that gays need.

 

[Jaysuitical]

I am allied with no “gay activist groups.”

If you have educated gay friends who are “married,” then you are allied with gay activists, because the very act of partaking in a fake marriage ceremony is an activist action.

I am a longtime proponent of SSM. I find the implications and accusations in your post very offensive. Mostly, I wonder how anyone can take a group of people, single out a bit of public rhetoric that does not represent majority thinking, try to attribute it to every member of that group and anyone who agrees with them. How is this not trying to stir up hate and resentment against a large group of people. How is this not sin?

That’s a misrepresentation. The development of gay activism in the last decade has been to tone down the behavior in order to get acceptance, much to the frustration of many of the older activists who had to repudiate the closeted gays who refused to act because they wanted to keep their respectability.

I have never heard anyone refer to a straight person as a “breeder” who was not a straight person. Not heard it from a gay person. But then, my gay friends tend to be educated, informed, charitable and well-bred and are, for the most part, married.

Until Obama, racists managed to conceal a lot of their racism from their acquaintances but were unable to keep it quiet when an African-American became president. Maybe you’ve never been around gay people when they’re not on their best behavior. I have. It’s a term of casual contempt which was tossed around as a way of bourgeois-baiting in their early part of the 21st century.

No one can destroy Sacramental marriage but those who believe in it.

This is an empty slogan, since those who insist that marriage is solely, by natural law, between a man and woman would be coerced in many ways to yield to the force of state law. No one can, of course, destroy a sacrament; but they can make sure that it is ridiculed, defiled, parodied, trampled under, made unfashionable and ostracize those who insist on maintaining the truth.

By not conflating this with a civil contract, you only strengthen the concept. Straight people have done more to destroy marriage, IMO, than any gay persons can possibly do who wish to be part of that. It was straight people who invented “serial monogamy,” “no fault” divorce, absent fathers and marriage as a “piece of paper.”

As Oscar Wilde said, “I not only follow you, I precede you” – or, past tense, preceded you. This was an argument that, till recently, I bought into. It’s pure sophistry.

Gay people are saying, “This is something of great value, we will dedicate ourselves to getting this thing of great value.” They already have the legal status and rights with civil union. Wanting marriage, means they value that.

They don’t value marriage; ironically, what they want is both the stamp of approval on their immoral choice plus the power to silence & to coerce the Church into placing children with same-sex couples & all other kinds of privileges society gives to families.

I fear for everyone who wants to lump together individuals into “dangerous” groups. They aren’t the danger.

Anyone who deliberately lies, misrepresents the lie to himself and to others, puts a great deal of energy & money into promoting the lie, is a danger. Just as the oil companies that support climate-change denial are a danger to global health, so the people who are most responsible for promoting drag marriage are endangering the already-precarious health of all the societies where this is being promoted.

 

[Jaysuitical]

Studies have shown gay marriages last for a shorter duration than heterosexual marriages. Research from Stockholm University found that in Norway, male male marriages are 50% more likely to end in divorce than heterosexual marriages, female female marriages are 167% more likely to end in divorce than heterosexual marriages. In Sweden, divorce risk for male gay ‘unions’ is 50% higher than for heterosexual marriages, divorce risk for female gay ‘unions’ is nearly double that. Marriage is supposed to a thing that homosexuals are fighting for yet when it homosexual marriage is available they divorce at a higher rate than heterosexuals

A part of the Great Lie is that gay & lesbian sex are just variants; but since they aren’t ordered to the higher human goods of child-bearing and family-rearing, they terminate in themselves; and when the possibilities of one partner are exhausted, the partners have to move on. Promiscuity is absolutely a part of gay life, and the attempt to dress it up – which is why I call it ‘drag marriage’ – in gray flannel suits & skirts is pure dissemblance.

 

[_Abyssinia]

How can there possibly be proper studies and stats on this when same-sex marriage has only been around for a few years? It is too early to have a good reading on it.

Besides, it’s not a fully accepted structure yet–and that affects the people in the study.
Once it is…then that is the time to take the temperature on how successful it is. Until then, it’s only half in place and those involved would not feel very stable because they are not getting a stable embrace from all around them.

.

Since homosexual marriage has not been legal very long in Sweden in Norway isn’t it even more surprising that the divorce rate for homosexuals is so much higher for homosexuals than for heterosexuals?

Sweden has had civil unions since 1995 which gave them similar benefits to marriage such as joint adoption. Homosexual marriage has been legal since 2009, and Norway has had civil unions since 1993 and homosexual marriage since 2009. The Swedish and Norwegians are very accepting of homosexual relationships and very accepting of civil unions and homosexual marriage when you look at polls and I think it is very unlikely that homosexuals in homosexual marriage in those two countries are not getting a stable embrace from people around them thus leading to increased divorce rate because of depression or angst for example, compared to heterosexuals

 

[CJECulver]

I don’t think you are understanding the thoughts, feelings, and emotions of people who have same sex attraction.

But the thoughts, feelings and attractions of two people are irrelevant to the definition of marriage.

 

[CJECulver]

everything that has happened in countries like Norway, legalization of polygamy

Norway was an example of a European-wide trend. Germany has also begun to recognize the polygamous marriages of the Islamic community within its borders. And Norwegian courts recently endorsed a polyamorous union between native Norwegians.

I didn’t include it in my earlier list because I’m less certain, but I suspect taboos against incest will also eventually weaken and fall. Since the argument against incest is only on genetic grounds, there is no longer any reason to deny sterile incestuous relationships. Once same-sex marriage is legalized, on what grounds do we deny two men the right to marry just because they happen to be brothers? Or father and son? Anecdotally, not so many months ago a SSM proponent replied to an enquiry of mine, “If two brothers want to marry, who am I to say they can’t?”

One of the few sexual deviations current mores would prohibit is bestiality (generally on the absolutely preposterous argument that animals can’t “consent”). Ironically, currently bestiality is legal in most states in the US.