The Case Against Homosexual Marriage

Crosswalk.com ^ | 15 January 2004 | Albert Mohler (Speech)

[chance33_98]

Another article of interest on this: is here

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping list -

If anyone wants on or off this ping list, let me know.

[spodefly]

BTTT

[longtermmemmory]

If homosexual marriage is legalized, homosexuals can then use the spousal benefit for purposes of entering the United States. There is no exclusion of a spouse.

In 1991 homosexuality ceased to be an exclusion for INS to keeep people out of the USA. Now with the homsexaulo marraige homsexuals can bring in other homosexuals on fiance visas, marry abroad.

We have a HUGE aids industry. While the ill could come TEMPORARILY on a medical visa, they can't get that unless they show the USA has special ability. (btw hence donating big buck to keep the aids problems over "there".)

A FMA would keep marriage OUT of the federal lexicon. Since all INS rules are federal it would keep homosexual marriage OUT of immigration law too.

[Lucky Dog]

Beyond the degradation of society, health care of homosexual “spouse” is one inevitable end result of recognition for “homosexual marriage.” It is all one giant scam on the part of homosexual advocates.

<<< When health-care costs are averaging $2,000 per household per year, and taking approximately 5 percent of every paycheck for the employee and nearly 10 percent of the payroll from the employer, we certainly cannot afford any additional increases in health-care costs. And, according to a 1993 report of the Kaiser Family Foundation, the average cost per person per year for overall treatment of AIDS is $38,000. >>> Kay Ostberg, Michael A Wilson in Insight on the News.

Get ready to “pony up” all you suckers that think “homosexual marriage” is not going to hurt anybody.

[NYer]

Sorokin traced the rise and fall of civilizations and concluded that the weakening of marriage was a first sign of civilizational collapse.

This point was driven home to me more than 30 years ago by a very close friend who had studied Ancient History in Italy. It was during the Feminist Revolution in this country that he said: "Mark my words! Throughout all of history, when women rise to power, they are immediately followed by the rise of homosexuals. This has been true in Ancient Greece and Rome. Within your lifetime, if the Feminist Revolution succeeds, you will witness the collapse of the US."

Thirty years ago, I laughed. Today, those words sound prophetic.

[GirlShortstop]

The central function of marriage has been reflected in law, custom, and an entire set of practices deeply embedded in the structures of society.   These range from implications in the tax code to various legal supports and cultural expectations extended to the married couple.   Society invests both rights and responsibilities in the institution of marriage and by its various incentives and disincentives, points towards a cultural expectation.   When that expectation is something other than marriage, problems immediately arise.

So much for the "it's none of my business"/head back into the sand approach.   Immorality aside, I've been amazed, and dismayed at the cultural disregard (n.i.m.b.y.?) for the impending social upheaval.  People need to wake up.

"Mark my words!..."

Wow NYer, prophetic indeed!  Thanks for sharing that.

[Snuffington]

The choice before us is not between two visions of marriage--but between marriage and madness.

Good closer. Deserves a bump.

[Coleus]

`

[hunter112]

Mohler seems to base this entire argument on one thing:

Homosexual couples cannot fulfill the functions of marriage. They cannot procreate. Severed from even the possibility of natural procreation, their relationship is inescapably unnatural.

Every citation that he makes of the need for a society to control sexuality refers to the period before there were effective means of conception control. The Pill not only separated sex from procreation, it put the control of this separation in the exclusive hands of women. This ship has sailed. We're not going back to the times when procreation was solely in the hands of ruling males.

[Victoria Delsoul]

Homosexual couples cannot fulfill the functions of marriage. They cannot procreate. Severed from even the possibility of natural procreation, their relationship is inescapably unnatural. Rather than reinforcing heterosexual responsibility and sanctioning heterosexual monogamy, same-sex sexual pairings undermine the very notion of a sexual norm. Acceptance of homosexual marriage flies in the face of both biblical revelation and millennia of accumulated moral wisdom.

Excellent article, thanks.

[Dajjal]

BTTT

[dsc]

"We're not going back to the times when procreation was solely in the hands of ruling males."

Sure we are. Again, and again, and again, as history cycles around.

Further, the existence of artificial contraception bears in no way on the arguments advanced. A man and a woman *can* procreate. Two men or two women cannot.

[hunter112]

My point is: Society needed to control sexuality to control reproduction. Now, individuals control reproduction, and the link between sex and reproduction is completely dissolved. Hence, the old reasons for regulating sexuality have dissipated.

Come up with another reason that gays should not be allowed to marry, besides the fact that they cannot reproduce, and there might be a chance of convincing enough people to not allow it to happen. Fail to come up with a reason that isn't as old as dirt, and be prepared for Adam and Steve taking the honeymoon suite down at the local Motel 6.

[scripter]

You might find this informative: What's Wrong With Letting Same-Sex Couples "Marry?"

[scripter]

Thanks for the ping.

"A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution." Michenlangelo Signorile in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994.)

Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.

Crain writes: "...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn't deserve the position." (Washington Blade, August, 2003).

Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater "understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." He notes: "The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness." (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)

Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said: "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality." (partially quoted in "Beyond Gay Marriage," Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)

Evan Wolfson has stated: "Isn't having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. "(quoted in "What Marriage Is For," by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)

Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says: "Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play." (quoted in "Now Free To Marry, Canada's Gays Say, 'Do I?'" by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)

1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: "Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit." [Emphasis added.]

[scripter]

Here's some interesting quotes as well:

Anthropologist Kingsley Davis has said, "The unique trait of what is commonly called marriage is social recognition and approval ... of a couple's engaging in sexual intercourse and bearing and rearing children." Marriage scholar Maggie Gallagher says that "marriage across societies is a public sexual union that creates kinship obligations and sharing of resources between men, women, and the children their sexual union may produce."

Canadian scholar Margaret A. Somerville says, "Through marriage our society marks out the relationship of two people who will together transmit human life to the next generation and nurture and protect that life."

Another Canadian scholar, Paul Nathanson (who is himself a homosexual), has said, "Because heterosexuality is directly related to both reproduction and survival, ... every human societ[y] has had to promote it actively . ... Heterosexuality is always fostered by a cultural norm" that limits marriage to unions of men and women. He adds that people "are wrong in assuming that any society can do without it." [emphasis in original]

[.45MAN]

We are living the collapse of the U.S. Already. We have been going down hill for a number of years and are at TERMINAL SPEED NOW! It will take a massive effort on the part of all conservative Christian activists of all faiths to even begin to slow this down and a heroic effort to bring it to a stop.

The days of being the unseen and faithful are over. We Must be seen and heard by all and we must be activists to the point of being revolutionary.

[dsc]

"My point is: Society needed to control sexuality to control reproduction."

Where'd you learn that, in the Feminist Studies Department of Joseph Stalin U?

Society used to have sexual mores in the interest of the greater good, because those mores were proven to bring the greatest happiness and least misery to the greatest number. Not to mention that God Himself took the trouble to tell us what our sexual mores were supposed to be.

"Now, individuals control reproduction, and the link between sex and reproduction is completely dissolved."

Which is why we have absolutely no teen pregnancy or abortions, right? That's why illegitimacy is not at 30% for whites and 60% for blacks, right?

It is gravely morally disordered even to try and sever the link between sex and reproduction, and it is also stupid as a box of hammers, because it just isn't going to happen.

"Hence, the old reasons for regulating sexuality have dissipated."

Nope. The way we used to do things works much better for all concerned than the way most people are doing it now. Not the least of the reasons for that is that you can't sever the link between sex and the heart, either. Then, too, God is still in His Heaven, and He's still going to hold us accountable.

"Come up with another reason that gays should not be allowed to marry"

Even though you failed to make your point, I will.

It legitimizes a mental disorder and creates the impression that disorder is health. This is bad on several counts, but worst because it abandons those poor people to mental disorder where with treatment they might have health and happiness.

"Fail to come up with a reason that isn't as old as dirt"

Everything good and true is old as dirt. And every "new" contradiction of those old things is nothing but another iteration of an ancient error.

"and be prepared for Adam and Steve taking the honeymoon suite down at the local Motel 6."

And when Adam and Steve give in to their compulsions and start dicking teenage boys, which they will, they can be prepared for Excedrin headache number 356.

How much of this crap do you think normal people are going to put up with?