Young Opponents of Gay Marriage Undaunted by Battle Ahead

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

buffalo

Guest
Young Opponents of Gay Marriage Undaunted by Battle Ahead

WASHINGTON — They hear that their cause is lost, that demographics and the march of history have doomed their campaign to keep marriage only between a man and a woman. But the young conservatives who oppose same-sex marriage — unlike most of their generation — remain undaunted.

They identify themselves as part of the “pro-marriage movement” and see themselves at the beginning of a long political struggle, much like the battle over abortion. If they can begin shifting the terms of the debate away from gay rights and toward the meaning of marriage, they say, they have a chance to survive short-term defeats

“The primary challenge that our side faces right now is the intense social pressure,” said Joseph Backholm, 34, the executive director of the Family Policy Institute of Washington. “To the extent that the other side is able to frame this as a vote for gay people to be happy, it will be challenging for us.”

To put it another way, opponents of same-sex marriage say they must argue in favor of traditional marriage, not against gay people or gay rights. “It’s really a broader defense of marriage and a stronger marriage culture,” said Will Haun, 26, a lawyer and member of the Federalist Society.

more…
 
I wish them will in their efforts. Personally, I have a hard time understanding why such an irrational concept as “same sex marriage” is able to garner any support at all. The fact that it does can only mean that marriage has itself become essentially meaningless in the view of its supporters. It would seem that pure sentimentality has replaced rationality when it comes to matters of sex and marriage.

To quote Mr. Anderson of the Heritage Foundation, from the article:

“In redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, what you’re doing is you’re excluding the norm of sexual complementarity. Once you exclude that norm, the three other norms — which are monogamy, sexual exclusivity and permanency — become optional as well.”

In other words, marriage becomes meaningless. With that, the family, the foundation of civilization, crumbles. Even if these young people see the culture working against them and little chance of success, they have to oppose the deconstruction of marriage, because they will have to live in the chaos that follows.
 
JimG said:
I wish them will in their efforts. Personally, I have a hard time understanding why such an irrational concept as “same sex marriage” is able to garner any support at all. The fact that it does can only mean that marriage has itself become essentially meaningless in the view of its supporters. It would seem that pure sentimentality has replaced rationality when it comes to matters of sex and marriage.

To quote Mr. Anderson of the Heritage Foundation, from the article:

“In redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, what you’re doing is you’re excluding the norm of sexual complementarity. Once you exclude that norm, the three other norms — which are monogamy, sexual exclusivity and permanency — become optional as well.”

In other words, marriage becomes meaningless. With that, the family, the foundation of civilization, crumbles. Even if these young people see the culture working against them and little chance of success, they have to oppose the deconstruction of marriage, because they will have to live in the chaos that follows.
Click to expand...
No fault divorce made it meaningless too.
 
I pray they are successful in spreading God’s truth, and turning people back to God’s ways which protect us all from harm. 😉
 
Thank you, buffalo.

Those who think they are supporting something good have not heard the other side of the story, because the 24/7 message is ‘a bad idea is a good idea.’

Monogamy? Fidelity?

nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html

In Canada, why bother?

nytimes.com/2003/08/31/world/now-free-to-marry-canada-s-gays-say-do-i.html

This is not just a Christian thing and it’s not a civil rights issue.

jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby_gay_marriage.php3

Lawyers, not the people, turned divorce into No-Fault Divorce. After demonizing all men in the 1970s, the radical feminists created fear, mistrust and anxiety in women. That created fertile ground for quick, easy, it’s nobody’s fault anymore divorce in the 1980s. LAWYERS turned marriage into a piece of paper. Just sign, pay and you’re out.

I opened the newspaper to the classifieds in the 1980s and saw lots of ads like this: “No kids? $75 and you’re out. Call 800-DIVORCE.” As one guy told me: “It just got too easy.”

And I and all my friends lived in a real Norman Rockwell in America which marxist liberals hate with a passion. They profess it was never like that. That’s a lie. No, it was not perfect, but I lived in a stable, functional country.

And let’s not forget the new OPIUM DENS that appeared all over the place in the 1970s and presented graphic prostitution to the public. Adult bookstores, strip clubs and topless bars. That cost millions of dollars to put together. So what do we have today? Sex addicts? Porn addicts? Masturbation addicts? YES - and it was all planned. Just a few years prior, the worst you could legally do was Playboy.

The lies need to be challenged the moment they appear.

Thanks,
Ed
 
Contraception and divorce have damaged marriage which is why it doesn’t need to be further damaged by redefinition, but strengthened

Great article 👍
 
Obsculta said:
And contraception before that.
Click to expand...
Contraception began the process. It delinked sex from procreation, and thereby from marriage. No fault divorce made marriage vows less binding than a mortgage document. One could recite vows and then cancel the marriage unilaterally. Abortion was the backup. Children were the losers.
 
Obsculta said:
And contraception before that.
Click to expand...
Pope Paul VI had Humanae Vitae published in 1968 because he saw what was coming - the sex without love revolution. The FDA approved The Pill in 1960 but most people lived on farms or rural areas, so access was limited and religious people followed Church teaching. The real propaganda started in 1967, with a cover story in Time magazine titled “Contraception: Freedom from fear.” Fear of what? Babies. A bundle of joy, a gift from God? Gotta put a stop to that kind of thinking, and there were dissidents in the Church who got very angry with the Pope.

“Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.”

"They asserted the following: “Therefore, as Roman Catholic theologians, conscious of our duty and our limitations, we conclude that spouses may responsibly decide according to their conscience that artificial contraception in some circumstances is permissible and indeed necessary to preserve and foster the values and sacredness of marriage.”

Source: Regnum Christi

“an event unprecedented in the history of the Church.” That should give everyone a clue. I mean the makers of the Pill could not afford to lose sales from people listening to the Pope! So they kept pushing it and pushing it just like viagra today.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
Pope Paul VI had Humanae Vitae published in 1968 because he saw what was coming - the sex without love revolution. The FDA approved The Pill in 1960 but most people lived on farms or rural areas, so access was limited and religious people followed Church teaching. The real propaganda started in 1967, with a cover story in Time magazine titled “Contraception: Freedom from fear.” Fear of what? Babies. A bundle of joy, a gift from God? Gotta put a stop to that kind of thinking, and there were dissidents in the Church who got very angry with the Pope.

“Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.”

"They asserted the following: “Therefore, as Roman Catholic theologians, conscious of our duty and our limitations, we conclude that spouses may responsibly decide according to their conscience that artificial contraception in some circumstances is permissible and indeed necessary to preserve and foster the values and sacredness of marriage.”

Source: Regnum Christi

“an event unprecedented in the history of the Church.” That should give everyone a clue. I mean the makers of the Pill could not afford to lose sales from people listening to the Pope! So they kept pushing it and pushing it just like viagra today.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Even before that - 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.

…3. Yet not only do We, looking with paternal eye on the universal world from this Apostolic See as from a watch-tower, but you, also, Venerable Brethren, see, and seeing deeply grieve with Us that a great number of men, forgetful of that divine work of redemption, either entirely ignore or shamelessly deny the great sanctity of Christian wedlock, or relying on the false principles of a new and utterly perverse morality, too often trample it under foot. And since these most pernicious errors and depraved morals have begun to spread even amongst the faithful and are gradually gaining ground, in Our office as Christ’s Vicar upon earth and Supreme Shepherd and Teacher We consider it Our duty to raise Our voice to keep the flock committed to Our care from poisoned pastures and, as far as in Us lies, to preserve it from harm.

…11. Thus amongst the blessings of marriage, the child holds the first place. And indeed the Creator of the human race Himself, Who in His goodness wishes to use men as His helpers in the propagation of life, taught this when, instituting marriage in Paradise, He said to our first parents, and through them to all future spouses: “Increase and multiply, and fill the earth.”[12] As St. Augustine admirably deduces from the words of the holy Apostle Saint Paul to Timothy[13] when he says: “The Apostle himself is therefore a witness that marriage is for the sake of generation: ‘I wish,’ he says, ‘young girls to marry.’ And, as if someone said to him, ‘Why?,’ he immediately adds: ‘To bear children, to be mothers of families’.”[14]
  1. Nor did Christ Our Lord wish only to condemn any form of polygamy or polyandry, as they are called, whether successive or simultaneous, and every other external dishonorable act, but, in order that the sacred bonds of marriage may be guarded absolutely inviolate, He forbade also even willful thoughts and desires of such like things: “But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.”[22] Which words of Christ Our Lord cannot be annulled even by the consent of one of the partners of marriage for they express a law of God and of nature which no will of man can break or bend.[23]
 
  1. For now, alas, not secretly nor under cover, but openly, with all sense of shame put aside, now by word again by writings, by theatrical productions of every kind, by romantic fiction, by amorous and frivolous novels, by cinematographs portraying in vivid scene, in addresses broadcast by radio telephony, in short by all the inventions of modern science, the sanctity of marriage is trampled upon and derided; divorce, adultery, all the basest vices either are extolled or at least are depicted in such colors as to appear to be free of all reproach and infamy. Books are not lacking which dare to pronounce themselves as scientific but which in truth are merely coated with a veneer of science in order that they may the more easily insinuate their ideas. The doctrines defended in these are offered for sale as the productions of modern genius, of that genius namely, which, anxious only for truth, is considered to have emancipated itself from all those old-fashioned and immature opinions of the ancients; and to the number of these antiquated opinions they relegate the traditional doctrine of Christian marriage.
  2. To begin at the very source of these evils, their basic principle lies in this, that matrimony is repeatedly declared to be not instituted by the Author of nature nor raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a true sacrament, but invented by man. Some confidently assert that they have found no evidence of the existence of matrimony in nature or in her laws, but regard it merely as the means of producing life and of gratifying in one way or another a vehement impulse; on the other hand, others recognize that certain beginnings or, as it were, seeds of true wedlock are found in the nature of man since, unless men were bound together by some form of permanent tie, the dignity of husband and wife or the natural end of propagating and rearing the offspring would not receive satisfactory provision. At the same time they maintain that in all beyond this germinal idea matrimony, through various concurrent causes, is invented solely by the mind of man, established solely by his will.
  3. Armed with these principles, some men go so far as to concoct new species of unions, suited, as they say, to the present temper of men and the times, which various new forms of matrimony they presume to label “temporary,” “experimental,” and “companionate.” These offer all the indulgence of matrimony and its rights without, however, the indissoluble bond, and without offspring, unless later the parties alter their cohabitation into a matrimony in the full sense of the law.
  4. Indeed there are some who desire and insist that these practices be legitimatized by the law or, at least, excused by their general acceptance among the people. They do not seem even to suspect that these proposals partake of nothing of the modern “culture” in which they glory so much, but are simply hateful abominations which beyond all question reduce our truly cultured nations to the barbarous standards of savage peoples.
 
  1. And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. **Some justify this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or on the part of family circumstances.
…****As St. Augustine notes, “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.”[45]

**65. All of which agrees with the stern words of the Bishop of Hippo in denouncing those wicked parents who seek to remain childless, and failing in this, are not ashamed to put their offspring to death: “Sometimes this lustful cruelty or cruel lust goes so far as to seek to procure a baneful sterility, and if this fails the fetus conceived in the womb is in one way or another smothered or evacuated, in the desire to destroy the offspring before it has life, or if it already lives in the womb, to kill it before it is born. If both man and woman are party to such practices they are not spouses at all; and if from the first they have carried on thus they have come together not for honest wedlock, but for impure gratification; if both are not party to these deeds, I make bold to say that either the one makes herself a mistress of the husband, or the other simply the paramour of his wife.”[51]
 
JimG said:
I wish them will in their efforts. Personally, I have a hard time understanding why such an irrational concept as “same sex marriage” is able to garner any support at all. The fact that it does can only mean that marriage has itself become essentially meaningless in the view of its supporters. It would seem that pure sentimentality has replaced rationality when it comes to matters of sex and marriage.

To quote Mr. Anderson of the Heritage Foundation, from the article:

“In redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, what you’re doing is you’re excluding the norm of sexual complementarity. Once you exclude that norm, the three other norms — which are monogamy, sexual exclusivity and permanency — become optional as well.”

In other words, marriage becomes meaningless. With that, the family, the foundation of civilization, crumbles. Even if these young people see the culture working against them and little chance of success, they have to oppose the deconstruction of marriage, because they will have to live in the chaos that follows.
Click to expand...
Because contraception and abortion stripped out procreation and no-fault divorce stripped out obligation about love and gays can love each other so why not?
 
  1. Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. **Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother’s womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and ****Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven.[53]
** 75. This, however, is not the true emancipation of woman, nor that rational and exalted liberty which belongs to the noble office of a Christian woman and wife; it is rather the debasing of the womanly character and the dignity of motherhood, and indeed of the whole family, as a result of which the husband suffers the loss of his wife, the children of their mother, and the home and the whole family of an ever watchful guardian. More than this, this false liberty and unnatural equality with the husband is to the detriment of the woman herself, for if the woman descends from her truly regal throne to which she has been raised within the walls of the home by means of the Gospel, she will soon be reduced to the old state of slavery (if not in appearance, certainly in reality) and become as amongst the pagans the mere instrument of man.
  1. This equality of rights which is so much exaggerated and distorted, must indeed be recognized in those rights which belong to the dignity of the human soul and which are proper to the marriage contract and inseparably bound up with wedlock. In such things undoubtedly both parties enjoy the same rights and are bound by the same obligations; in other things there must be a certain inequality and due accommodation, which is demanded by the good of the family and the right ordering and unity and stability of home life.
 
The above posts are just a sampling. It is so rich and prophetic. Read it entirely. It is one amazing encyclical. 👍
 
Thank you, buffalo.

So many, especially the young, believe that they are more free but without true instruction, how can they live? By whim alone? And now that the shameless try to interject their lack of shame even into a few historical books, I am about to assign two recent purchases to the trash. Yes, I’m a sinner, and I write this to myself as well - we must not remain silent in the midst of it.

As the Church so loudly proclaimed in the 1930s regarding the motion picture in particular, it was necessary and right for Catholics - the flock entrusted to their care - to be fully informed of all these things. What is happening, by the grace of God, is that a return to sane, moral arts is occurring right now. Both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict, through the power of the Holy Spirit, have increased the desire of men to join seminaries, which, for some, have reached capacity. Throughout the Bible, a merciful and loving God has always left a remnant so that those who earnestly call on His Name are heard. And are planted and strengthened as He wills.

Do not faint, my brothers and sisters. Have hope.

God bless,
Ed
 
I Just Came For Ashes

Robin Beck had been active in the gay community for over 30 years. One February afternoon, she innocently walked into a Catholic Church to “do ashes.” I Just Came for Ashes is the amazing story of God’s alternative plans for his wayward daughter, who no intention of ever leaving gay life and didn’t possess an ounce of openness to becoming Catholic. Read and discover how sovereign mercy won the day and saved her life.

She speaks how she wrestled with God six months.
 
I do have to chuckle when pundits claim that demographics will inevitably lead to the ‘gay marriage’ adovcates winning the day? I get what they mean: that today’s younger generation is highly susceptible to the emotional / fairness arguments that the activists are using. But “demographics” for a literate person ought to mean rather more than “the next crop of voters.”

Demographics is on the side of ACTUAL marriage for the same reason that ‘gay’ marriage is absurd in the first place: Gay relationships simply aren’t fundamentally oriented towards making and raising babies. It’s the whole reason government cares about (licenses, regulates, provides perks for) marriage in the first place!

As the culture discards the actual meaning of marriage, it predictably has fewer and fewer children. As long as there is a significant cultural split between those who view marriage as a feeling celebrated publicly and those who see marriage as a permanent union oriented towards family life, the latter is going to GREATLY “outbreed” the former. Demographics will be the long term doom of the gay marriage activists - especially as time makes more obvious the devastating effects of devolving marriage into a glorifed infatuation and people once again reject that shallow definition.
 
manualman said:
I do have to chuckle when pundits claim that demographics will inevitably lead to the ‘gay marriage’ adovcates winning the day? I get what they mean: that today’s younger generation is highly susceptible to the emotional / fairness arguments that the activists are using. But “demographics” for a literate person ought to mean rather more than “the next crop of voters.”

Demographics is on the side of ACTUAL marriage for the same reason that ‘gay’ marriage is absurd in the first place: Gay relationships simply aren’t fundamentally oriented towards making and raising babies. It’s the whole reason government cares about (licenses, regulates, provides perks for) marriage in the first place!

As the culture discards the actual meaning of marriage, it predictably has fewer and fewer children. As long as there is a significant cultural split between those who view marriage as a feeling celebrated publicly and those who see marriage as a permanent union oriented towards family life, the latter is going to GREATLY “outbreed” the former. Demographics will be the long term doom of the gay marriage activists - especially as time makes more obvious the devastating effects of devolving marriage into a glorifed infatuation and people once again reject that shallow definition.
Click to expand...
Here’s the thing, for some, mathematics and lobbying are used to “get the numbers” they want so they can get what they want. Period.

Just like people who hate the family but love abortion, with the man having no say. They think that people will “gradually get used to it.” So, let’s do the math
  1. One man + one man
  2. One woman + one woman
  3. One man + one woman.
Quick quiz. Which combination is capable of generating the next generation of human beings?

And adoption by gays? Where do those babies come from? Nowhere?

But they love advertising, lamenting early losses primarily on a lack of money. More math.

Yep, there will be gay people but faux marriage will not help. And I had no trouble with the gay and bisexual people I worked with, until a group of radical gay activists kept pushing their sexual behavior in our faces.

Peace,
Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top