'Gay marriage' supporters continue fighting Prop. 8

- OneNewsNow ^ | 3/17/2009 | Charlie Butts and Marty Cooper

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

The goal is the destruction of the traditional, nuclear family.

It illogical to simultaneously think of homosexuals as a handful of deviants and view homosexuality as a threat to the traditional family. First of all, despite gay marriage being illegal in 48 states, that certainly hasn't stopped people from being gay, nor did it when that was the case in all 50 states, so I don't understand why people think that legalizing gay marriage will suddenly create greater numbers of homosexuals. Secondly, and more importantly, if the foundations of the nuclear family are so weak that they could fall apart that easily, then we have much bigger problems.

I personally believe that men and women having children (in other words, the traditional nuclear family) is the natural order, and the homosexuals are the exception, not the rule. I think most people would agree with that. However, if one agrees with that, then what possible threat could gay marriage pose?

[MrB]

“gay marriage” is but one of the avenues of attack,
most of the agenda of the left has the same goal,

but people with blinders on see each of these agenda items in isolation and unrelated.

The left does this with everything - remember how all the Clinton scandals and all their associates being convicted were all “isolated incidents” and not part of a bigger picture of corruption.

[longtermmemmory]

well now this would require legislative approval would it not? Since such a level of change was deemed a “substantive constitutional issue” by the legislature.

[calcowgirl]

Marriage is a religious institution and there’s no reason for the state to get involved.

No. Marriage is not a creation of the church or the State. Marriage is a social institution deemed to be a postive influence on society as a whole. As such, the Government chose to recognize and encourage it by providing certain benefits/incentives.

Replacing marriage with "domestic partnerships" is nothing more than an attempt to destroy the nuclear family, IMO.

[lentulusgracchus]

Oh, okay, you're saying this is a Frankfurt School thing, bigger than HRC and their Pavlovian seminar posters, script-editors, censors, school-facilitators, etc., etc.

More a clear-away-the-wreckage-of-corrupt-bourgeoise-etc.-etc. kind of thing.

Well, you might have a point. Some of the original queer radicals were, in fact, card-carrying Communists. The Mattachine Society was founded in an attempt by some non-Communist gays whom the Communists had tried to attract, to distance themselves from the guys who were getting investigated by HUAC and the FBI, back in the late 1940's and early 1950's.

Ironic that the FBI was being run by a big old femme in fishnet.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

See my post #21. Believing in the strength of the nuclear family whilst simultaneously fearing homosexuality as a thread to it is contradictory. Furthermore, I don’t believe in using government power for social engineering, which is really what marriage laws really are if you think about it. As you said yourself, “the Government chose to recognize and encourage it by providing certain benefits/incentives.” Sounds like social engineering to me...

[calcowgirl]

See my post #21. Believing in the strength of the nuclear family whilst simultaneously fearing homosexuality as a thread to it is contradictory.

It isn't fear of homosexuality -- just recognition of the bigger picture and the ultimate goals. Ever read the goals of the Communist Party? Try these two for starters:

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

But why fight Communism? After all, anti-Communists are really just "Social Engineers!"

Furthermore, I don’t believe in using government power for social engineering, which is really what marriage laws really are if you think about it. As you said yourself, “the Government chose to recognize and encourage it by providing certain benefits/incentives.” Sounds like social engineering to me...

LOL. Well, then let's just do away with all police forces, schools, highways, etc. Those are just "social engineering" projects, aren't they? Illegal immigration? Nah... no such thing -- that's just social engineering! Why have laws at all? Anarchy is obviously a better solution. And why concern ourselves with the survival of civilization -- just more "social engineering."

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

You have still failed to explain how removing the concept of state marriage will encourage more homosexuality, and even if that were true, how that would discredit the family as an institution. Family doesn’t need government recognition to exist. It will be just fine.

[calcowgirl]

You have still failed to explain how removing the concept of state marriage will encourage more homosexuality ...

Hello?

I never said any such thing. Why should I try to explain something that I never asserted?

and even if that were true, how that would discredit the family as an institution.

Nope... never said that, either.

And, BTW, you failed to address anything in my post which WAS responsive to your post.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

Then I have no clue what you’re trying to say. Why do you think it’s necessary for the state to enforce marriage? How will failing to do so bring on the destruction of the nuclear family?

[fwdude]

I go to Massachusetts on a regular basis for business, and gay marriage has had exactly zero effect on the state.

LOL!!! Try asking those parents with children in Massachusetts public schools how the homo-agenda has encroached into their kids lives against their wishes or knowledge since "marriage" can now mean anything there. Or ask Catholic Charities how their mission has been changed in the state.

You must truly be wearing lib-colored glasses - and I don't mean libertarian.

[lentulusgracchus]

There are already plenty of gay cohabiting couples in every state; the level of legal protection won’t do anything to change it. California will be exactly the same regardless of one, both, or neither of these initiatives pass.

Wrong. "Ideas have consequences." Who said that one?

Marriage is under coordinated, long-prepared legal attack. There are hundreds of homosexual attorneys working right now on a Constitutional attack on marriage. Their goal is the Supreme Court, where a closeted Justice Souter waits perfidiously to offer their lying briefs a civil reception.

[lentulusgracchus]

Why do you think it’s necessary for the state to enforce marriage? How will failing to do so bring on the destruction of the nuclear family?

This is seminar-poster boilerplate.

You are not being straight with us.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

If you take marriage out of the hands out the state, that removes their ability to attack it. I don’t understand why anybody would be opposed to this position.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

What sort of seminar? How am I not being straight with you? My position is clear; take the definition of marriage away from the state, give it back to the church, where it belongs. The traditional family is a strong enough institution that it doesn’t need government protection. If you believe that it’s foundation is so weak it can be threatened otherwise, then we have bigger problems.

[Wuli]

It may not be particular “Marxist” though Marxist thought has become so embeded in so many branches of liberal, “progressive” and politically correct thinking that it becomes hard to be sure of the philosophical pedigree anymore.

But, like Marx, it - destruction of marriage - is from the view of the artificial, engineered man, that must be preceded by man without any moorings. It is impossible to create, to engineer a “new man” unless you have destroyed what supports organic human civilization.

What Marx did not understand, and neither do the practitioners of all the schools of thought who use Marx as a base, is that their social engineering agenda will always fail, because it goes against human nature. They may not see it immediately, do to some short term success, but it cannot create sustainable societies.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

What Marx did not understand, and neither do the practitioners of all the schools of thought who use Marx as a base, is that their social engineering agenda will always fail, because it goes against human nature.

I agree with this, but that's exactly why I don't understand all the uproar about this issue. Human nature always prevails, and consequently traditional marriage is under no threat. If either the removal of government recognition of marriage or the legalization of gay marriage could threaten it, then it would be very weak, suggesting that it's NOT human nature. If they're able to succeed at destroying marriage, then it was destined to fail anyway. I'm of the belief that they will fail, not marriage.

[Wuli]

The rightful concern is that they - those seeking to destroy marriage - CAN succeed, possibly, for a time, even though, in time, the resulting society will fail; and fail possibly because of their temporary success.

[MinnesotaLibertarian]

The rightful concern is that they - those seeking to destroy marriage - CAN succeed, possibly, for a time, even though, in time, the resulting society will fail; and fail possibly because of their temporary success.

I don't see how you can believe that without believing that a majority of society are closeted homosexuals. How else could it destroy marriage?

[Wuli]

Again, the crux of the philosophy is not necessarily “pro ‘gay’”; the same arguments can, and most likely will, be used to support legalized polygamy and legalized ‘group’ marriage down the road. Added together with modern in-vitro fertilization, legalized adoption as a “right” to any single, or conjoined set of “responsible” adults, and regardless of the number of “gays”, heterosexual “singles” are, already, and more will be offered legitimacy to any “committed” relationship, sans traditional marriage.