You miss my point, and the point of the article. What you said is factual, but the insertion of facts at an inappropriate part of a debate is not beneficial. You also are guilty of false conflation. Sure, everything you mentioned has weakened marriage, and made if vulnerable - but that doesn’t make it the same thing as forces who are setting out to destroy marriage.
By your definition, using an anlogy and logic, any institution that is weakened by it’s own imperfection deserves to be destroyed by those who hate it in the first place. To harp on this now is just absurd, even though you are using some factual information as the basis of your opinionated blowhardiness....
Well, but there is an ideological continuity at work here. I once heard Bay Buchanan speak here in Springfield and she made an interesting case how the Marxist theory of absolute equality was a factor in the rise of feminism, which was the driving force for “liberating” women from antiquated divorce laws which treated her as mere property of the male. And when that didn’t bring utopia, the biological inequity of having to bear children became the next milestone to seek. But the “free love” revolution still did not succeed in bringing equality, so marriage as a government-encouraged institution is the next logical hurdle. It was an interesting talk for her to give on a secular campus. Sponsored by Young Republicans. I wish more people understood the unified ideological fronts we face, and showing how gay marriage is just one point on the continuum of the Marxist evolution to utopia provides a beneficial understanding of what, really, we are up against.
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