Posted on 07/06/2007 5:30:15 AM PDT by jimluke01
The homosexual lobby has fine-tuned its rhetoric in recent years. Through the hyperbolic and repetitive use of such concocted expressions as "marriage equality" and "gay rights," the left has dishonestly but effectively framed the debate over homosexual behaviors.
By co-opting and misapplying the language of the genuine civil rights movement, homosexual activists – along with kindred leftists in the media, government and elsewhere – are making considerable strides toward reshaping our culture. They've enjoyed much success in attaining official government recognition of a disordered and empty, though demonstrably mutable, sexual lifestyle.
They yearn for a society created in their own secular humanist image wherein all are compelled to not only accept, but to celebrate high-risk, unnatural and fruitless homosexual behaviors as both normal and equal to natural expressions of human sexuality. Their ideal is a society in which inherent gender distinctions are eliminated and God's express design for human sexuality is replaced by morally relative and surreal notions of sexual androgyny.
Nowhere are the dumbing-down of sexual morality and the blurring of gender lines more evident than in the left's effort to radically redefine marriage. Massachusetts is the only state that currently allows "same-sex marriage." Nine other states permit some form of "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships," which, in truth, are simply "gay marriages" by another name. (Those states are Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Maine, California, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii.)
But despite the feigned and fevered cries of liberals for "marriage equality," it's becoming abundantly clear that the arguments conservatives have been making against "gay marriage" are spot-on. The vast majority of homosexuals don't desire "marriage"; rather, militant homosexual activists desire to use "same-sex marriage" as both a tool to normalize homosexual behaviors and as a weapon to tear down the institution of legitimate marriage.
First of all, the term "marriage equality" is illusory. All men and women in the United States have equal access to marriage. But under the very definition of marriage (one man-one woman) no person has the right to marry more than one person at a time or to marry a minor child, a close relative, an animal or a person of the same sex. Generally speaking, any man can marry any woman. Just because one may choose not to do so, does not mean that he cannot do so. And just because one defines his identity based upon his choice to mimic sexual intercourse with persons of the same sex, it does not preclude him from marrying within equally applied parameters. He has equal access to marriage and by definition enjoys "marriage equality."
But getting married isn't even on the radar screen for the vast majority of homosexuals who choose to engage in a lifestyle largely delineated by short-lived and unstable relationships at best – and more often by casual and promiscuous sexual encounters.
Consider that according to the latest Massachusetts Department of Public Health statistics, there have been only 9,695 total "gay marriages" in Massachusetts since 2004 when then-Gov. Mitt Romney began issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals. Of those 9,000 plus, some 6,121 took place in just over the first six months while the "gay marriage" novelty toy still had its sheen.
In 2005, only 2,060 same-sex couples took the "gay-pride" plunge; and in 2006 only 1,427 tied that queer little knot. By the end of April of this year, a mere 87 "gay" couples had "married" in Massachusetts.
Even more telling – though not particularly surprising – are statistics coming out of Canada where "gay marriage" is now legal nationwide. For instance, in the city of Toronto – which boasts of having one of the world's largest homosexual populations –only one Canadian "gay" couple has "married" so far this year, according to a report by Reuters.
While recently addressing the rapidly downward spiral in homosexual "marriages" in Massachusetts and elsewhere, Tammy Mosher, Massachusetts state director of Concerned Women for America, observed, "The thrill of their 'victory' is gone. It's not about their 'right' to marry and it never has been. It's about condoning their lifestyle and removing the sacredness of traditional marriage."
And Mrs. Mosher is absolutely right. As the numbers on this whacky "gay marriage" social experiment continue to plummet, it's becoming obvious that homosexual activists don't care one iota about "marriage." Their true agenda is not really "marriage equality" and the right to enter into monogamous "marriages," but rather, their intention is to water down traditional marriage so the institution – which is so very important to healthy child rearing and a healthy society – no longer has a unique and respected place in society. Everything marriage stands for (i.e., monogamy, fidelity, the nuclear family and those "oppressive" gender stereotypes associated with the need for a "mom" and a "dad") must be done away with to foster acceptance of sin.
But it goes far beyond simply undermining marriage. To legitimize disordered sexual behaviors, which have traditionally been considered immoral and are scientifically and objectively proven to be destructive, it's necessary to dissolve the notion that traditional marriage and the nuclear family are normative and represent the gold standard. According to some, that's a sexually repressive Judeo-Christian concept, you see. And for secular humanism to properly take root, we need a society that embraces the idea that all forms of sexual behavior – no matter how perverse or destructive – are equally valid.
The good news is Americans are catching on to the disingenuous motives behind the homosexual activist push for "same-sex marriage." A recent survey by the Pew Center indicates that opposition to "same-sex marriage" is currently at 57 percent (up from 51 percent in just March of last year).
As fewer and fewer homosexuals avail themselves of the opportunity to "marry" in those areas where it's allowed, it's likely that the obvious disconnect between the clamor for "marriage equality" and "gay marriages" actually performed will continue to both expose and alert Americans to the illegitimate motives behind this illegitimate concept.
#####
Matt Barber is one of the "like-minded men" with Concerned Women for America. He is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law and serves as CWA's policy director for cultural issues.
bttttt
Here, let me play:
'Gays' 'don't' 'want' 'marriage' 'after' 'all'
That was a really interesting article, it makes sense that homosexuals aren’t really interested in marriage, rather it is a tool to tear down marriage to make their own lifestyle seem normal, if you can degrade marriage, then what is wrong with the gay lifestyle. Oh course gays aren’t really interested in marriage, most of them prefer promiscuity. Without a belief in God, morality if pointless in the end.
I was channel surfing last night between innings of the Mets game...switched over to the premier of Big Brother...from what I could gather...two of this year’rs contestants are gay..really obvious, swishy, bitchy types...they used to be in a relationship..it ended badly..they now hate each other..when one finds out that the other is on the show with him..he screams out that the guy gave him gonorhea...and that he has really big nipples...this is on CBS at 8PM...
I wonder how many of those 9,695 are monogamous -- and what effect that has on heterosexual marriages.
and how many gay DIVORCES?.............
True. First they tried, "We're just like heterosexuals. It's just that we prefer those of the same sex".
Well, that didn't work -- attending just one Gay Pride parade will debunk THAT claim.
The desire I can understand. The behavior I don't. I don't accept promiscuous behavior in heterosexuals -- why would I accept it in homosexuals? 50, 100, 500 different, anonymous sexual partners in one year?
They're not getting divorced because of infidelity, that's for sure.
It sure as hell can't be differences in religion!...
Spot on.
In Massachusetts, the schools have been a playground for homosexual activists for some time. In fact, it's hard to imagine things getting worse, but they most certainly will. Homosexual activists are now pushing to remove from gov't schools any books that show a "one-sided" view of marriage. On what legal basis can parents object?
For those who want to close their eyes and wish this all away, I point you to Jesus' admonition.
Depends what you mean by “all.”
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Click FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search for a list of all related articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
How long until the pro-gay agenda trolls appear?
It’s been awhile since I’ve seen them.
Or have they mostly become extinct?
The article is right. Very few homosexuals desire marriage. The idea always has been to cheapen actual marriage and to create a tool with which to propagandize children. Once same-sex “marriage” is accepted, such couples will inevitably be included in textbooks and children’s stories. They’ll be dropped casually into sitcoms and movies, TV commercials, music videos, etc..
Homosexuals will also have another gimmick with which to impose themselves on society in general. We already have dating and adoption services being hauled into court with the demand that they include homosexuals. Landlords, restaurant owners, and others are being forced to accommodate the homosexual lifestyle as a requirement for doing business. Eventually, churches will have to either change their teachings on homosexuality or lose their tax exemption. We already see leftist senators incessantly browbeating Republican nominees if they belong to a traditionalist church. Judge Pryor went through hell at his confirmation hearing because he had refused to take his small children to DisneyWorld on “Gay Day”. Bush ended up having to give him a recess appointment, and he was finally confirmed only as one of the few concessions to our side in the Gang of Fourteen compromise.
Ouch!
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.