Posted on 04/20/2013 5:24:12 AM PDT by rhema
Even knowing that there are radicals in all movements, doesn’t lessen the startling admission recently by lesbian journalist Masha Gessen. On a radio show she actually admits that homosexual activists are lying about their radical political agenda. She says that they don’t want to access the institution of marriage; they want to radically redefine and eventually eliminate it.
Here is what she recently said on a radio interview:
“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are 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. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.
"I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.”
For quite some time, the defenders of natural marriage have attempted to point out that the true agenda behind the homosexual demands organizations is not marriage equality; it is the total unraveling of marriage and uprooting traditional values from society. (This will ultimately include efforts to silence and punish some churches that openly adhere to their religious teachings about marriage and sexual morality.)
While few have been as vocal as this lesbian activist was in this interview, we do have numerical examples proving her point. When given the opportunity to marry, after laws have been struck down relatively small percentages of homosexuals actually bother to marry compared to their heterosexual counterparts. This raises question about the true need to unravel marriage for the “fair” extension its benefits. Only 12 percent of homosexuals in the Netherlands marry compared to 86 percent of their heterosexual peers. Less than 20 percent of same-sex couples already living together in California married when given the chance in 2008. In contrast, 91 percent of heterosexual couples in California who are living together are married.
Clearly this is about cultural change and tearing down the traditional family ethic, since it seems that most homosexuals living together neither need nor desire to marry, though they do desire to radically change marriage.
Gays and lesbians are free to live as they choose, and we live in a society which roundly applauds them doing so like never before in our history, but they do not have the right to rewrite marriage for all of society.
I’ll throw in some of my own off the cuff advice: personally attacks and repeatedly claiming someone will never understand are not ways to persuade people or win arguments.
true goal
It takes (a) Village People.
Well heck, life on a message board may just be too much for you. I admitted I was just tweaking you with that last jab (duh, that’s what “throw in for free” meant) - and yet, you make that the focus of your response. Dang, if I didn’t know better, I’d assume I HIT PAYDIRT.
Having said that, message board debates are rarely about winning the one you are debating (though I rec’d some pvt mails this week that I did do that) - it’s about sharp contrasts being pointed out for others. I knew you were too bitter over this to change....
Sorry about messing up your echo chamber.
The only thing you messed up was your relevance to the issue at hand. You still don’t understand it. You brought up another issue....related...but another issue nonetheless....and a valid one....but you just couldn’t step back and admit that is what happened. Stubborn? Poor reading comp? Overly emotional? Pick one.
It is Opinionated Blowhard who has the better of this argument. The point is that “homosexual marriage” is the mop-up activity of the destruction of marriage that was accomplished primarily through no-fault divorce, the acceptance of contraception, and therefore of separating the unitive and procreative aspects of sex, and therefore vitiating one of the foundations of marriage, and in a cyclical way, the imposition of legal abortion on demand.
Put another way, “homosexual marriage” is more symptom than cause. Opposing the deep, structural changes that are evidenced by “homosexual marriage” by opposing “homosexual marriage,” itself, is feckless. The foundations for those deep, structural changes were established when we got rid of “till death do us part,” and “they stayed together for the sake of the children,” and “if you knocked her up, you’re going to marry her,” and “I’m not that kind of girl, after all, I have a reputation [and a desire not to have children till married] to protect.”
It was all these things that have led people to generally think that marriage is about recognition of the romantic attachments of persons rather than about a permanent relationship and bond dually meant to provide companionship and consolation to a man and woman together and to provide a stable environment for the rearing of any children that might proceed therefrom.
“Homosexual marriage” is just the pimple on the butt of the heretofore strictly heterosexual destruction of marriage.
THAT'S the point.
sitetest
I’m sorry that your arguments inability to withstand challenge is causing you such frustration.
Thank you for your reply. With due respect, you still miss the point. Blowhards argument is NOT PERTINENT to this thread, which was my only point. It seems to me that perhaps you didn’t read the original article, and somehow missed my repeated - repeated - repeated claims that everything Blowhard said was actually correct. Please go back and re read at least the headline.....and then try and tell me that this event is not significant....in and of itself.
Quite the contrary dude....I came to this thread happy with the subject of the thread. The kill joys then came in off topic.
You are being taken off the message of the article by what is called a red herring. It reminds me of when Sarah Palin has a great message and those who we call those with Sarah Palin Derangement Syndrome manage to take everything off message with the “quitter” attack.
The message of the article reveals the greater threat to our society than the flaws of the institution: a concerted effort to destroy the building block of society by destroying marriage. It is being orchestrated and it, by that nature, is a more dangerous threat. The Left, with all of its useful fools, will aid and abet this destruction using their gay minions as the driving force. It is the ultimate aim of Marxism to grind human beings down using the tool of egalitarianism. In this case it is tied in with civil rights.
With the economy as bad as it is, our youth are reluctant to make that economic commitment that marriage represents. This is especially true of those from very poor economic situations. So, cohabitation with all of its variables, has taken over. Children are the victims. I bring up this to say that the Left are very opportunistic. They will take advantage of a situation, even though temporary, to further their cause. Their tactic is to use the gay tie in with civil rights to promote their ultimate designs. Their main target, as has been for a long time, is marriage and the institutions (churches) that promote marriage.
I have read the entire thread to this point, and although I see your point, OB’s point is larger and MORE pertinent.
After 50+ years of accepting the brick-by-brick, plank-by-plank destruction of marriage by heterosexuals, some of whom have stated the very same goals as this lesbian, now we're to get upset that homosexuals are putting the finishing touches on the job, and are becoming more open and honest about it?
I don't think OB is saying this event has no significance, but OB IS RIGHT to say that it must be viewed in context, and that context is that the larger harm was already done, and was often done, bit-by-bit, marriage-by-marriage, by those who now complain about the smaller harm.
Here is the nub:
“She says that they don’t want to access the institution of marriage; they want to radically redefine and eventually eliminate it.”
The problem with this sentence is that it assumes that marriage hasn't already been radically defined, that marriage wasn't already well on the way to, if not quite elimination, removal from the central place in western human society.
Her sentence is false not because there is a problem with the conclusion but because her premise is false. She believes, along with many others, that it is “HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE” that will redefine and ultimately eliminate marriage. It will not. Because the job of redefining marriage already happened. And it is heterosexuals who have played fast and loose with marriage for the past half-century or so that did it.
Marriage rates have been falling dramatically, marriage has become optional to child-bearing, openness to children has become optional to marriage, fidelity has become optional to marriage, monogamy has become optional to marriage, life-long commitment has become optional to marriage, all before the recent trend to force the acceptance of “homosexual marriage.”
In what way has marriage not already been redefined into the recognition of a romantic attachment between two (and ultimately, between more than two) persons?
“Homosexual marriage” is like the fellow who comes along after the house has burned down and notices one brick still laying on top of the other, and kicks it, and then takes credit for bringing the whole house down.
Is it significant? Yeah. A little bit. Is it significant outside of the context of whatever burned down the whole house? No.
sitetest
That’s how life on the interwebtubes works.
So basicall she is saying she wants to be married to her BROTHER as well as three other persons.
As near as I can tell, apart from some nuances, we are all on the same side here. All agree that marriage is no longer as strong an institution as it once was because of changes in attitude from within the marriage (specifically Christian) culture. However, I am not inclined to believe that if the institution were strengthened it would solve the larger cultural problem. It would be good for those who are married and it would be good for the Church. If the institution of marriage were stronger would the cultural attacks continue? As long as we live in a purportedly diverse culture the answer has to be yes.
A slightly larger issue is the one raised by the article. The gay marriage issue is not simply about homosexuality per se, it is about "cultural change and tearing down the traditional family ethic." And I think we are all in agreement with the intent of the article.
But I think there is an even larger issue that the article does not address, except in passing in the next-to-last paragraph—"cultural change." R.R. Reno, in this month's "First Things" (not yet available online) in an article on Pope Francis, describes the political environment of Latin America. His comments apply equally here. In fact we are probably even further down the road:
...in the last half century it's been revolutionary leftism that has tended to do the most damage. Its love of state power has often opened the way for cynical forces to gain control of economic life, nearly always to the benefit of the well-connected and at the expense of the poor.
To make matters worse, now the left in Latin America is adopting the cause of [here is the crux, FRiends] lifestyle liberation, as it's doing elsewhere. It's spreading Agent Orange of the the patterns of traditional culture that provide stability and dignity that transcend economic status. Marital fidelity, moral rectitude, spiritual disciple: these riches of the soul are available to us without regard to our economic status. As the left undermines them, sometimes out of neglect and sometimes because they are in the way of their view of social justice...
Vaquero's reference to the "45 Declared Goals" leading to the Communist takeover of America is close to the heart of the real issue politically. But I am inclined to think that we all too often fight this enemy on its own political and materialist grounds when the real battle is a spiritual one. Reeses was even closer to the problem" the underlying motive behind leftism and its destruction is envy, a dark and evil force."
Envy is the driving force behind the Left and the state is it's chosen means to rectify what it considers injustice. Marriage was weakened from within. We should not be surprised that the Left would then choose to attack it in its weakened condition. But if we think gay marriage, or even the destruction of marriage, is their end game, we will be fighting the wrong war. (And if we only fight among ourselves, that is also the wrong war.)
This is actually going to be lawfully difficult, as I'll explain below.
> ...By a gay preacher. Yes it gets worse. Example: Gay "married" preacher applies for a job at a church. The church refuses because he is gay, but particularly because he is a "married" gay. Law suit...the gay preacher is hired...and is harassed...congregation is divided. Gay preacher wants to preach...he is refused...law suit...he preaches to an almost empty sanctuary...game, set, match.
Many States have, in their Constitution, prohibitions against this sort of thing. Take TN, for example:
Art I, Section 3.The italicized portion would clearly prohibit any such lawsuit, for by accepting such a lawsuit the State would be saying that the congregation (and church board) must maintain a minister against their own consciences.
That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience; that no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any minister against his consent; that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode of worship.
p
Destroying the institution of Marriage and re-defining it has been, and remains their fist goal to ultimately destroy the Church.
That's how I've seen it for years now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.