10 Reasons Why Homosexual “Marriage” is Harmful and Must be Opposed

50% of serial killers and 35% of pedophiles. That is because they are already seriously mentally ill and willing to do the most repulsive things against nature.

Part of the problem is the Phony Christian Churches that bend to the desires of the society instead of bending society to the desires of God.

11. Polygamy has far more historical precedent. Do we want to go there as well?

We may not WANT to go there; but, we will get there just the same. Once marriage has been RE-defined, it enables others to redefine it over and over again.

As I have been pointing out for a while: If there is nothing special about marriage being between one man and one woman, then, what is so special about the number two.

There is such a thing as a slippery slope; and the "gay" marriage movement is the first push down that slope.

“6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union”

Not only no procreation, but also It isn’t “sterile” at all when it comes to spreading multiple diseases and physical ailments.

Those perverts should have a fag health policy with much higher premiums than normal people.

The questions asked by health insurance companies, such as, do you smoke? How many packs a day? For how many years? etc. should include: are you a homo? How many times a week? Multiple partners? How many? How long have you been doing this? etc.

If they lie, which they will, then in check up(s) they should be penalized or kicked out all together, especially if they come down with AIDS or any related physical malfunction or injury. I’ll spare you the filthy details.

I betcha y0h0m0’s premium could reach tens of thousands a year if the above was applied in one of his 0b0z0Kare plans.

That is a problem, but look at the marriage rates in the Roman Catholic church for example.

You can claim many things, but they have been pretty serious about marriage. Yet Catholics are not getting married.

In my own synod (the LCMS), we are also very strict about marriage.

The issue is that people are not caring. Many would rather leave the church.

11. It legitimizes deviancy. If social pressure from a statistically insignificant minority can change as venerable and valuable an institution as marriage, what other norms can it challenge? And what kind of world will be left when all norms are removed? If we don’t draw the line here, where will we draw it?

Of course they don't care. Most are going against their Church anyway. Most wouldn't know what was wrong in the firs place.

We have a Pope who says we have to spend less time on abortion and homosexuality, yet, I am a weekly attendant, minimum, at Mass and can not remember the words, contraception, abortion, homosexuality, ever being said in any of the Catholic Churches I have attended,. What I hear ad nausea is the LOVE of God. ‘God is all love’ . God Loves Us.

Sure God loves us, yet he is a vindictive guy. HE made Hell. HE condemns most to Hell if we are to believe scripture. Yet, almost all Christian denominations down play the Justice and punishment of God.

Why repent when not doing so has no ramifications.

I am ambivalent about gay marriage.

First, I am acutely sensitive to the maintenance of the family because I have a hobby horse which I ride ceaselessly on these threads: the left is attacking every institution which holds our society together and which holds back the advance of socialism/communism/statism. The attacks on the family were fashioned originally by The Frankfurt School which delivered a 1-2 punch, attacking the family and destroying the father's role as an authority figure within the family. That means That The Frankfurt School and its misbegotten spawn have long aimed to destroy the institution of marriage.

Therefore, I am reflexively hostile to any threat to the institution of marriage because I see it as part of the crimes of cultural marxism arising out of The Frankfurt School. If I am to err, let it always be on the side defending the world against The Frankfurt School.

Let me clear away some of the underbrush. There has been much equating of abortion and homosexual marriage. The objection to abortion is profound and it need not be grounded in religion. Abortion is the killing of a human being not yet born and as such it is indefensible. Moreover, the practice involves the infliction of harm on an innocent victim who in this case cannot defend himself. That certainly is not true of adult homosexuals desirous of entering into a marriage. There cannot be said to be a victim. To the degree that opponents of homosexual marriage are seen to be invoking the law to impose their objections to private conduct, without a victim, the political party which supports them will not be supported by an increasing number of Americans. To the degree that the opponents of homosexual marriage are seen to be invoking the law to punish activity done in private which subjectively makes them squirm, the political party which supports them will not be supported by an increasing number of Americans.

The Question for me becomes, does the very fact of the law sanctioning marriage between couples of the same sex inevitably undermine the institution of marriage between heterosexual couples? I know that the social conservatives are emphatic in holding that the institution of heterosexual marriage will be mortally compromised. But I have never understood exactly why this should be so. I think the belief is that sodomy is such a grotesquerie that to equate it with the God ordained sacrament is to defile marriage. To sanctify sodomy with a solemn and legal marriage certificate is an outrage which defiles marriage.

It seems to me that this reaction is a subjective one and that means that one man's subjective reaction is as valid as another man's. Some people are troubled by this and some people are not. I have trouble declaring that one reaction ought to be elevated in the law over the other.

There is also the problem that sodomy between consenting adults done in private has been awarded by the Supreme Court the status of constitutional protection. Therefore, no state may prohibit homosexual sex done by adults in private. Evidently, they have a constitutional right of privacy to bugger each other as much as they want.

Parenthetically, it is important to note that almost nobody objects to civil unions or civil contracts which give gays the right of inheritance, custody and visitation, hospital access, and burial rites etc. I am inclined to think that society ought to grant these rights to gays as a matter of course. On the other hand, conservatives rightly reject the notion that someone can declare himself married and thereby obtain benefits from the government to which he would not otherwise be entitled. I am very much in sympathy with this position. Hence one source of my ambivalence.

So opponents of homosexual marriage are being forced onto an ever narrowing land bridge. On one hand the activity sanctified by marriage, homosexual sex, has already been sanctified by the Supreme Court and is therefore perfectly legal. On the other hand the majority of Americans agree that virtually all the benefits of marriage should be accorded homosexuals by virtue of their choosing to enter into a civil contract. So the narrow land bridge says that homosexuals can do everything else married couples can do except go through a ceremony which is acknowledged by the state. The problem with this remaining remnant of dry land from which to object to homosexual marriage is that homosexuals can easily find some church which will conduct the ceremony. So opponents of homosexual marriage are reduced to maintaining the hollow position that the church ceremony, which practically can be done at will, may not be acknowledged by the state.

As the ground under the feet of those who object to homosexual marriage continues to erode, it is becoming clearer that they are on the wrong side of history. That is not necessarily a good thing. Not a good thing for our society and, unfortunately, not a good thing for the conservative movement.

There is an argument which weighs on behalf of the opponents of gay marriage. The historical fact is that marriage is and always has been inextricably bound up in religion and it is a deep tradition in our culture that marriage is done according to the precepts of our Judeo Christian heritage. Clearly, homosexual marriage is explicitly and provocatively contrary to those faiths. Religion has given birth to the concept of marriage and as such it has a claim on the concept. It is a claim that says if you want a make a marriage you must do it according to our precepts, if you want to behave contrary to our precepts you must call it something else: a "civil union" would be a good name.

This argument says that it is important to protect the sanctity of marriage from degrading it by associating it with sodomy. I am sympathetic to this view because as I stated at the beginning, if you destroy the family you have gone a long way toward destroying any resistance to the kind of society people like Barack Obama would like to impose on us.

But I am not so sympathetic as to go to the wall to protect the institution of marriage from a threat which I see to be attenuated and probably inevitable when to do might compromise other important precepts of conservatism resulting in the very real sacrifice of real victims- like unborn babies.

I read the reasons in this article which the author invokes to argue that homosexual marriage is "harmful." I remain unconvinced that there is a connection between the "reasons" he adduces and harm to the institution of marriage. That, of course, is a different issue than whether homosexual marriage is somehow harmful to society.

Where is society today? It is in a state of flux as a result of cultural and technological forces which have not yet fully played out but which clearly are resulting in degrading the institution of marriage. Culturally, we are in the post Murphy Brown age in which Vice President Dan Quayle was rounded upon by the keepers of our culture when he rebuked the network for holding up unwed motherhood as a desirable state. Today, nearly 70% of African-American births produced bastards as do an increasing number of whites, nearing or exceeding the 40% mark. Clearly, the culture has passed the institution of marriage by. That is not to endorse this trend in the culture but merely to remark it.

Technology has also had a profound role to play. Long before Murphy Brown, around 1960, a seismic event occurred which has profoundly altered not just marriage but our entire culture. It was then that the pill was introduced and with it the virtual assurance of an ability to control pregnancy and procreation. Marriage as an institution was designed to manage those theretofore uncontrollable realities. As those realities became controllable, the need for marriage declined. The culture was further modified even before the pill by the introduction of penicillin which brought venereal disease largely under control, thus eliminating another practical need for the monogamy theoretically associated with marriage.

The women's movement perversely brought us no-fault divorce which has destroyed more marriages that homosexual marriage possibly could. The change in our divorce laws cannot occur in a vacuum and it is impossible to insist that our marriage laws will not change as the culture, technology and divorce laws all sweep past the institution.

Of all the places for conservatism to place its energy, opposition to homosexual marriage will produce fewer fruits, the greater blowback, and risk portraying the conservative movement as having been overrun by history.

One final thought, we ought as conservatives to distinguish between opposition to court sanctioning of homosexual marriage, especially rulings by federal courts, and referenda or actions of state legislatures who are representatives of the people. We have sound constitutional grounds to object to the courts sanctioning homosexual marriage against the will of the people, especially as it was expressed by referendum in California, for example. As a matter of philosophy we should object to the tyranny of judges, they have no special expertise or authority to decide these issues. There is no federal constitutional right to sodomize, even in private, despite what the courts say and, by implication, there is no federal constitutional right to legitimize buggery with matrimony.

If the states acting through their elected representatives or through referenda decide to legitimize homosexual marriage, that is quite another thing.

As far as I can see, the phony churches won’t even perform ‘gay marriage’ until the state they happen to be in also agrees with them. That’s a result of being conditioned to think the state actually defines marriage, to the point that even though these wackadoos think it is theologically possible and a civil right they still won’t perform ‘gay marriages’ until the state pats them on the head and tells them it is OK.

Freegards

It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.

What about those of us who are straight and married, but choose not to have children? Is our marriage a sin or are we not really married?

It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent.

The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex “marriage.” A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.

So I must be a devil child having spent the first three years of my life in foster homes before be adopted by two people who do not share a blood relationship with me. I have never even met my natural mother and father, and I guess that makes me a third class loser in the eyes of God.

On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile. If the “spouses” want a child, they must circumvent nature by costly and artificial means or employ surrogates. The natural tendency of such a union is not to create families. Therefore, we cannot call a same-sex union marriage and give it the benefits of true marriage.

There are many heterosexual marriages that are also sterile either because the spouses decide not to have children or for whatever reason, they are unable to conceive without "costly and artificial means or employ surrogates."

That’s a huge percentage for 3% of the population.
Let’s not forget they also put Hitler in power.

The brown shirts were queer.

10. (Continued) And God pours out wrath on behaviors He finds offensive. If it’s just individuals involved, and the culture still shames and condemns the disgusting behavior, then only the individuals will have God’s wrath fall on them:

Rom 1:27 And in the same way the men gave up the natural use of the woman and were burning in their desire for one another, men doing shame with men, and getting in their bodies the right reward of their evil-doing.

But if whole cultures embrace the behavior, then whole cultures will have His wrath poured on them. See Sodom and Gomorrah, ancient Greece, ancient Rome, etc.

So in reality, this is the most profound national security issue imaginable. We invite God’s wrath and well-deserved national oblivion by embracing acts He finds disgusting (abomination.) But we obviously love our depravity more than we love national security.

For the first couple centuries our laws were indistinguishable from God’s commands. That was no accident. We purposefully conformed our laws in this way in striving for His blessings. And richly blessed were were, during that obedience. That also was no accident. But in the past couple of decades our laws have steadily diverged from God’s commands, and now our formerly rich and prosperous nation is now teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. That’s also no accident. That’s God’s wrath deservedly falling on us.

11. Polygamy has far more historical precedent. Do we want to go there as well?

Not it does not. Monogamy has always been the universal norm for the average household. While societies have allowed or tolerated the rich and powerful to amass women like they amass other forms of wealth and luxury, it is not the standard because of the biological reality that there are simply not enough women for every many to have multiple wives.

The historical reality is that polygamous societies are violent because in order for some men to have multiple wives means that other men must do without. This creates social friction that does violence towards young men who are competition to older more powerful men and towards young women who are turned into chattel and sold to these older men. There is also violence between the wives and violence between or toward the half siblings.

Such societies are made crippled, deformed and unstable by the practice of polygamy.

I'm neither advocating polygamy nor saying it is superior to traditional monogamous marriage. I'm simply saying that there is more historical precedent for it than the gay marriage model offered by the pink mafia.

I also dispute yoour generalization: The historical reality is that polygamous societies are violent because in order for some men to have multiple wives means that other men must do without.

Many are, others are not. Among many Native American tribes, it was the norm and not the exception. There was a surplus of women which resulted partly from the higher death rate among men due to wars, but also due to occupational hazards such as hunting.

The Mandan, for instance, were a polygamous society and warred very little. Polygamy afforded them a number of advantages beyond taking care of surplus women, of which there really weren't that many. Wives could specialize. One might excel at food preparation, another at child rearing, a third at turning hides into clothing or shelter.

I'm not really interested in reopening that Pandora's box save for selected historical observation. But that is exactly what the gay mafia has done.

You have it exactly backwards. The fault is with the biological parent(s) that purposely deprives a child of a relationship with one or both of his biological parents.

This is bad adult behavior and legalizing gay marriage enshrines this bad adult behavior and normalizes it.

The value in a sterile heterosexual marriage is that it follows the biological norm and can provide both a mother and father model to those such as yourself whose misfortune should not be compounded by the state deliberately encouraging even more children be created and intentionally deprived of biological relationships at the whim of the homosexual lobby.

“How does homo “marriage” affect my own marriage”.

The following sell-outs on Faux News tout this line now.

Bill O’Reilly
Sean Hannity
Megyn Kelly (calls homo “marriage” a civil right.
Sheppard Stewart (started crying on his show when Obama was reelected, nothing more needs to be said)
Stossell (their civil right)
Kraulthammer (their civil right, he’s also pro-abortion)
Bernard Goldberg (their civil right)
Dennis Miller (pro-abortion, pro homo “marriage)

And Faux is suppossed to be the conservative alternative to the other liberal channels? What a joke.

I will submit that normalization of polygamy was caused by the acceptance of it. The gender imbalance (if any actually existed) due to warring was caused by raiding for women because they didn’t have enough women to go around.

Childbirth mortality would naturally create a shortage of women, compounding it with polygamy results in a surplus of young men best gotten rid of by sending them out to raid.

It was a self-perpetuating problem. Polygamy is socially dysfunctional and is a huge driver of conflict and violence.

The reality is that Homosexuals are so few in number they could all get married and not increase anyone’s business.

The problem is the leftist dominated public chools have turned out at least 20 years of ignorant high school graduates who have been brainwashed into believing homosexuals are normal. There are enough of them out there to at least make a big enough stink to make companies and governments nervous.