To: tdadams; little jeremiah; Barnacle
Would you not attribute the simultaneous emergence of these two issues to be due more to a general liberalization in Europe rather than having any cause and effect relationship?
That was my first thought also when I saw the article. It's first necessary to define what constitutes the erosion of the family, then the writer has to show a substantial statistical correlation between this erosion and the general acceptance of homosexual unions. I didn't see the graphs or tables showing how the basic data points to their conclusion-- all we get here is the conclusions with references. The final gap was the missing 'nuts-and-bolts' causal relationship-- just where is the 'harm' mentioned in the title?.
This is a big time hot button issue- and IMHO, these gaps were glossed over because the writer can only preach to the converted, and there is no proof that would ever be accepted by say, Howard Dean's backers. Even if they showed actual electrical shocks leaping from homosexual union law books killing all married persons-- Clinton would still be asking what 'is' is.
The massive homosexual industrial complex knows that they're wacko. That's why they don't call for some new kind of social institution, they want what they do to be called 'marriage' because they know that 'marriage' is better than what they do. But don't ever tell them that, because then they'll accuse you of having latent homosexual tendencies yourself.
Not that there's anything wrong with it.
Here's what some noted homosexual spokespeople have to say about "gay" marriage:
(Proving in their own words that their mission is to change the meaning of morality in society.)
"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."
To: expat_panama; tdadams; little jeremiah
Here's the bottom line. I don't need no stink'n European study to know that prevalent homosexuality is a indication of moral decay and societal decline.
The objectives of homosexual groups is no longer just to be left alone, they want their perversion to be considered acceptable by adults, children, and churches. They want to change the world we live in so that their sickness will be accommodated.
The world they envision is Sodom and Gomorrah, and I ain't living in it.
posted on 01/27/2004 6:23:48 PM PST
("It is as it was." JPII)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson