Topic: Another reason Fighting over Gay Marriage isn't worth it

[Weisshaupt]

Because given the opportunity to Marry, Gays, by and large, don't actually want it.

Sometimes the best way to deal with a stubborn, wayward, selfish child is to let him have what he wants - because what he wants WON'T make him happy.  Even if they get Married, they will probably divorce

In Norway, male same-sex marriages are 50 percent more likely to end in divorce than heterosexual marriages, and female same-sex marriages are an astonishing 167 percent more likely to be dissolved.

[Predator Don]

Because given the opportunity to Marry, Gays, by and large, don't actually want it.

Sometimes the best way to deal with a stubborn, wayward, selfish child is to let him have what he wants - because what he wants WON'T make him happy.  Even if they get Married, they will probably divorce

In Norway, male same-sex marriages are 50 percent more likely to end in divorce than heterosexual marriages, and female same-sex marriages are an astonishing 167 percent more likely to be dissolved.

No, it is worth it. Only to Barack Obama is it not worth it, and he can't help himself.

[Pandora]

Because given the opportunity to Marry, Gays, by and large, don't actually want it.

Sometimes the best way to deal with a stubborn, wayward, selfish child is to let him have what he wants - because what he wants WON'T make him happy.  Even if they get Married, they will probably divorce

In Norway, male same-sex marriages are 50 percent more likely to end in divorce than heterosexual marriages, and female same-sex marriages are an astonishing 167 percent more likely to be dissolved.

No, gawdamnit, they're not going to be allowed to change the definition and the concept for the rest of us.  That it won't make them happy and will not perform the function of "settling them down", ya know, LIKE REAL MARRIED PEOPLE, would only be adding insult to injury.

Furthermore, the polygamists and polyamorists (whateverthehell the difference is) are slavering over their turn, where they get to claim as well, and with some legitimacy, DISCRIMINATION. 

What kind of world do you want your kids to live in?  It doesn't matter that you teach them you values or maybe it does, more than you realize, because they'll be living with the values you taught them in a society with which they are the weird aliens.

[Glock32]

Only the union of man and woman produces a family, a tribe, a nation. It follows, naturally, that it is this union that is enshrined and codified as the framework on which life is brought into existence, reared into adulthood, and then ultimately in turn transmitted to the next generation.

If various forms of psychiatric headcases and perverts don't like it, TFB.

[Weisshaupt]

No, gawdamnit, they're not going to be allowed to change the definition and the concept for the rest of us. 

What kind of world do you want your kids to live in?  It doesn't matter that you teach them you values or maybe it does, more than you realize, because they'll be living with the values you taught them in a society with which they are the weird aliens.

I guess I have always been that alien, so I guess I don't see it that way. I already don't belong and have accepted that fact, for me and for my kids.

Remember a definition is an abstraction - its a series of sounds that denotes a concept.  They could marry, the state could recognize them as such and you and I are still free to see it as a fake "marriage", just as we see through all of the other leftist Word BS.  Its Seakittens.

In the end they will find the institution holds nothing for them - being as it was designed and implemented for heterosexual people with children, and the .01% of the population who can make it work on gay terms,   let em. We have so many more  important battles right now that what the 1% of the 1% do shouldn't be taking up our time. The numbers aren't significant enough to change anything - the understanding of the word, the acceptance in polite society, or the perception of the institution. If we took this off of the table, how much fervor would these demons loose?

Take the wind out of their sails. Let them marry and find that they can't hack it. You wanted to live by our standards, well fine, here they are.  I agree we should be uncompromising about the standards to which they must be held to, but lets watch them try and Laugh as they fail in their fake marriages - they don't have what it takes to succeed in a real one, and these numbers prove it. Like the lone terrorist who demands to treat with governments,  we have given these gay A-holes too much power over the narrative.

[Weisshaupt]

Only the union of man and woman produces a family, a tribe, a nation. It follows, naturally, that it is this union that is enshrined and codified as the framework on which life is brought into existence, reared into adulthood, and then ultimately in turn transmitted to the next generation.

Precisely the point.  These a-moral morons can not produce a family, a tribe or a nation. They can do none of the things a Marriage was formed to do. They have little choice but to fail utterly at it, and this is hard evidence that suggest that is exactly what they do.

[charlesoakwood]

They could marry, the state could recognize them as such and you and I are still free to see it as a fake "marriage", just as we see through all of the other leftist Word BS.

I don't want to see either one of those things; figuratively, virtually, and especially literally.  We may all appear aliens to ourselves but that's because the pod people
are multiplying exponentially.

[Pandora]

No, gawdamnit, they're not going to be allowed to change the definition and the concept for the rest of us. 

What kind of world do you want your kids to live in?  It doesn't matter that you teach them you values or maybe it does, more than you realize, because they'll be living with the values you taught them in a society with which they are the weird aliens.

I guess I have always been that alien, so I guess I don't see it that way. I already don't belong and have accepted that fact, for me and for my kids.

Remember a definition is an abstraction - its a series of sounds that denotes a concept.  They could marry, the state could recognize them as such and you and I are still free to see it as a fake "marriage", just as we see through all of the other leftist Word BS.  Its Seakittens.

In the end they will find the institution holds nothing for them - being as it was designed and implemented for heterosexual people with children, and the .01% of the population who can make it work on gay terms,   let em. We have so many more  important battles right now that what the 1% of the 1% do shouldn't be taking up our time. The numbers aren't significant enough to change anything - the understanding of the word, the acceptance in polite society, or the perception of the institution. If we took this off of the table, how much fervor would these demons loose?

Take the wind out of their sails. Let them marry and find that they can't hack it. You wanted to live by our standards, well fine, here they are.  I agree we should be uncompromising about the standards to which they must be held to, but lets watch them try and Laugh as they fail in their fake marriages - they don't have what it takes to succeed in a real one, and these numbers prove it. Like the lone terrorist who demands to treat with governments,  we have given these gay A-holes too much power over the narrative.

It doesn't matter about them, that they can't hack it.  Don't you see?  Allowing this permanently changes the paradigm for everybody, for kids who aren't even born yet.  Look, every European country that has allowed this has seen marriage almost disappear; it's become irrelevant, outdated, passe.  Same-sex marriage was the coup de grace on an institution overtaken by the state -- the subsidies and tax breaks which stepped in the vaccuum created by the lack of stable two-parent couples, created so Mommy could do well without him.

The homos will fail in one respect, but in the other, they will have succeeded in relegating matrimony to an antiquated and stuffy custom of which few, in one generation, will partake.  The language will change; wife/husband, bride/groom; mother/father; what will they mean to your children's children?

Weisshaupt, I need to ask and with all due respect, of what exists now that is endangered do you believe is worth fighting for?

[charlesoakwood]

"Social proof, the idea we do what other people do, that is the primary motivation for primates is to not look different."
                                                                         The Stratosphere -- Bill Whittle

They are the aliens.

[Pandora]

"Social proof, the idea we do what other people do, that is the primary motivation for primates is to not look different."
                                                                         The Stratosphere -- Bill Whittle

They are the aliens.

Not when they're the majority.

[warpmine]

Because given the opportunity to Marry, Gays, by and large, don't actually want it.

Sometimes the best way to deal with a stubborn, wayward, selfish child is to let him have what he wants - because what he wants WON'T make him happy.  Even if they get Married, they will probably divorce

In Norway, male same-sex marriages are 50 percent more likely to end in divorce than heterosexual marriages, and female same-sex marriages are an astonishing 167 percent more likely to be dissolved.

Problem is we're not dealing with an irrational child. No we're dealing with a Marxist political scheme to undermine out connection with God and this has already been demonstrated in other societies during the history of the twentieth. If you want to see the ealy results of caving look no further than MA, as marriage was just a small quick stepping stone and now the lobby for it has wiggled it into the classroom and the parents haven't any choice in shielding their children from it.

No, fight it as if you're fighting for you personal survival.

[Predator Don]

  In the case if liberal homos wanting to marry......What is success to a liberal? It won't be a successful marriage, it can't be for the reasons Glock describes.....and homo libs know it. To understand why libs want this, you first must understand what is considered a success to a liberal.

[Libertas]

  In the case if liberal homos wanting to marry......What is success to a liberal? It won't be a successful marriage, it can't be for the reasons Glock describes.....and homo libs know it. To understand why libs want this, you first must understand what is considered a success to a liberal.

Success for a liberal is defeating your enemies and accruing more power to yourself and over others.  In this case militant homos want to force acceptance of their immoral and unnatural lifestyle choice onto everybody who has up until now opposed their choice.  They want the veneer of normalcy even though they and everybody else knows they will never truly have it, but it throws it into the faces of their enemies and that is good enough.

[IronDioPriest]

I separate the moral issue I have with homosexuality from the practical issue.

I think it is a perversion, and an affront against nature's God. But that is only a minimal reason for me to oppose homosexual marriage. The tolerant, libertarian side of me says, it's not my business if faggots want to smoke pole and pack fudge. The idea of that activity being sanctified and condoned as "marriage" insults my morality, but that is not my primary objection.

My objection is on a practical basis. Once homosexuality is legitimized through marriage, then it follows that not only will any "small-D" discrimination against it become forbidden; not only will it be given moral equivalence at every possible opportunity; but it will actively be promoted as superior - a protected victim class that garners intrinsic nobility for itself simply for having been victimized and now lauded. One only need look at how homosexuality is treated in the media to see this. Magnify that by a thousand if homosexual marriage becomes the law of the land. "Victims" are sainted by the Left, elevated as paragons of liberal virtue, and become untouchable, beyond reproach.

There will be calls for affirmative action to atone for the ages-long persecution of homosexuals. Organizations are already beginning to feel the pressure to place orphaned children into homosexual homes, and to make no distinctions between hetero and homosexual couples. One can presume that based on the progressive model, if homosexual marriage becomes the law, the calls for affirmative action in the adoption of children is not far behind. With no legitimate basis for placing children into heterosexual homes, there will be an effort to "catch up" in a mad rush to place children with homosexuals. Nothing could accomplish the agenda faster or more effectively than a generation of children whose peers are increasingly raised by homosexuals.

Teachers in schools will be forced not just to teach children that families are headed by non-gender-specific couples, but that the ones headed by homosexuals are good, normal, natural, and somehow "special". Homosexuality will become an entrenched part of sex education. Every time family is discussed, it will be affirmed that heterosexual couples are not the norm, and that homosexual couples are normal.

In the end, it's not about fearing what homosexual marriage will do to me. That is a standard argument of pro-homosexual marriage folks - "How will it hurt your marriage?" That is not my concern in the least. My concern is that the radical homosexuals seek to alter the fabric of society in a way that has never been tried. Not even in the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah was perversion sanctioned by marriage. That does not mean I make a moral argument. I point to the destructive consequences of perversion, and let the immorality speak for itself.

[Weisshaupt]

The homos will fail in one respect, but in the other, they will have succeeded in relegating matrimony to an antiquated and stuffy custom of which few, in one generation, will partake.  The language will change; wife/husband, bride/groom; mother/father; what will they mean to your children's children?

Weisshaupt, I need to ask and with all due respect, of what exists now that is endangered do you believe is worth fighting for?

Marriage is an old, antiquated, useless custom that gays desperately need access to. Those effects didn't happen because Gay Marriage was made legal- they happened because the Socialist State ultimately wants marriage and families to become a relic.  Changing the meaning of a word will not make Gays become accepted as normal, nor will it alter the terms of our own relationships with our spouse, family and children.  Words have no power but what we decide to give them. Social Proof is what will matter, and ultimately Gay Marriage will wither and die if we refuse to change our own behavior in the matter.  If the Amish can preserve their community, customs and beliefs in the face of the Fed - so can we. The mistake here is to assume there is one culture we are battling over - and in so doing you have accepted the enemies premise - that there should be only one culture -one ring to rule them all. That legality is equivalent to morality. Is that the lesson you want to teach you children? That Right and Wrong are dictated by the State? 

[blockquote]One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them. [/blockquote]

It is the socialists who are trying to force a change in the attitudes and behavior of the majority - to force them under the dominion of a unified culture and power.  They will read "Two Mommys" to your kindergartner regardless of if Gay Marriage is allowed or not.  They will teach "tolerance" of all manner of perversity and hand out fisting kits and free abortions, no matter what is happening in reality. They will complain bitterly about racial discrimination even if there is none about. They will complain about the unfair treatment of women, and ignore the biological facts that explain the disparities. They will claim the rich stole money from the poor, even when they have eliminated the rich. They will lie, cheat and steal in their quest for power, and if possible they will do so using the government as a cloak to give their actions an appearance of legitimacy

They have no interest in reality - but are more powerful when their lies correspond with it - because that is how they are binding individuals to them - using  government force to create issues and conflict to grow their power base.  Anything that weakens the enemies ability to bind or control will ultimately harm them. If the gays can no longer be used as a locus of power, and rallied to the greater Socialist cause, they will be dropped from the agenda.  If Abortion is guaranteed and the GOP  isn't coming after your woman parts, how many adherents would the left loose?  At this point it is about weakening the enemy as much as possible. 

So what is worth fighting for?  We must fight to maintain our own culture - to be free to teach our children according to our values, to live our lives without having to pay tribute to the barbarians. We must fight to be free to exercise our own conscience, and live our lives accordingly. We must ensure our equality before the law in such matters.  That is the fight worth fighting. 

Trying to use the One Ring for  "good" - to prevent sinners from being sinful, will not help us. Being free to live our way, means leaving others free to live theirs, even if they choose to do it in sin and depravity - because in so doing they to become Social Proof of the folly of other ways -   living examples that betray the real aims of the enemy. The utter failure of Gays to uphold the standards of Marriage demonstrates the sinfulness of their ways. The utter ruin and despair  brought on my allowing a tribe to sacrifice its own innocent babies, serves as its own warning. They become our Social Traffic Lights - we simply point to them and tell our children "That is why we don't do that"

Tom Waits in The Fisher King

I know I have a minority opinion here, and I respect that others feel differently. I just feel it is very unwise to try and use the power of Government to prevent Sin. If God has a problem with certain individuals, I am sure he is capable of dealing with them without our help.  The government should not be setting and enforcing the moral standards for our community - WE SHOULD BE.

[IronDioPriest]

...They become our Social Traffic Lights - we simply point to them and tell our children "That is why we don't do that"... I just feel it is very unwise to try and use the power of Government to prevent Sin. If God has a problem with certain individuals, I am sure he is capable of dealing with them without our help.  The government should not be setting and enforcing the moral standards for our community - WE SHOULD BE.

...And our children respond, "But yes daddy, we do." The reality of homosexuality being sanctioned by the fundamental societal institution of marriage will undermine any possible teachings against it that a parent may seek to impart. The child will look at what the parent says and hold it up to the reality of the world around them and conclude that the parent is completely out of touch with reality.

I would argue that in fighting against homosexual marriage, WE ARE setting and enforcing the moral standards for our community. Our government in its intended form is supposed to set a framework in which individuals pursue happiness and prosperity under the rule of law while doing no harm to others, and to do so at the behest of the people. Individual liberty was never intended to indicate the creation of a society without a framework. Family is society's most basic framework. It's institutional support does no harm to those who do not partake.

As I said earlier, I am less concerned with the moral implications of homosexuality and the immoral message homosexual marriage sends than I am about what practical harm such a paradigm shift will inflict upon the society. A society that normalizes and institutionalizes perversion cannot stand. I couldn't care less about the perverse, but I care a great deal about the society.

[Glock32]

I don't believe opposition to legalized gay marriage is an effort to use the government to prevent sin. The sin, if you accept it as such, is the homosexual act itself. Even the most conservative people recognize that if two grown men want to cornhole each other in the privacy of their own home, then so be it. What is being opposed is the effort by such people to force the much larger population, which has created social institutions to serve its own interests and values, into redefining and twisting the institution to accommodate a perversion.

Marriage is a particular thing, and any who abide by its particulars can participate in the institution. Those particulars are: a man, a woman. The end. There's nothing in law that prevents a gay man from marrying a woman, their problem is that a woman isn't who they want to marry. So all the rest of us should just upend everything to make them happy? Next it won't be couples getting married, but triples and quadruples and who knows what else.

Have you heard about men starting to use women's bathrooms? Since they "identify" as female well who are we to tell them they can't waltz into the bathroom full of real women? And the most disturbing part is that their complaints are being given merit and everyone is expected to accept the idea that, oh, that's a woman! Male and female are just social constructs, after all. That's exactly where this relativistic nonsense leads. You let them refashion marriage according to their whims, and it will be anything and everything else too.

[charlesoakwood]

 
A culture that bends itself to special interests over the
norm is on the brink of convulsing itself to extinction.

[Libertas]

Their message is "the tar pit is fine, come on in"!

 

[IronDioPriest]

 
A culture that bends itself to special interests over the
norm is on the brink of convulsing itself to extinction.

Sometimes you manage to say in so few words what it takes me an essay to parse.

Brevity is a virtue.