Posted on 03/31/2012 2:12:55 PM PDT by ReformationFan
Answer: The wedge was already there.
Same-sex marriage activists are disturbed that the National Organization for Marriage reached out to enlist the help of minorities to defend pro-gender marriage.
A recently released memo by NOM states, "The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks — two key Democratic constituencies." Gender-segregationist Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry asserts that NOM "will stop at nothing to push its agenda, pitting American against American, minority against minority, family members against family members."
The elephant in the room is the big fat wedge that existed long before NOM came into existence to defend marriage from activists who want to change it entirely by removing the gender-integrated component. Perhaps they believe that if they keep blaming NOM, no one will notice that it is same-sex marriage itself that pits American against American, creates a new minority of gender-segregated "married" couples, and divides families by deliberately preventing children from having a relationship with both a mother and a father.
Living on the wedge
Gender segregationists will be extremely disappointed when they finally realize how many wedges they created by advocating for separate marriage for genders. There's the wedge between evangelicals and the gay agenda. The wedge between Catholics and gender-segregated "marriage." The wedge between parents and homosexual propaganda in school. The wedge between businesses and their money when they are sued by monogender couples. The wedge between freedom of religion, and coercing people of faith to obey new gender-segregating marriage laws. The wedge between procreative biology, and the infertility of two "married" men.
Which came first, the pro-gender position or the wedge?
For millennia, people have honored gender integration in marriage. Don't blame NOM. Gay rights activists are the ones pushing segregation. The biggest wedge of all is separating men and women in marriage.
I love this writer's terminology. Same-sex "marriage" should be called legal gender segregation while Biblically correct marriage should be called gender integration.
And “monogender couples”. Can’t wait for “monospecies couples”.
Same-sex marriage activists are disturbed that the National Organization for Marriage reached out to enlist the help of minorities to defend pro-gender marriage.
NOM is doing exactly what the GOP should’ve been doing to win Minorities in to the party. It is exactly those social issues that gives us hope to win greater percentages of Minorities. Look at recent elections in NY. Bob Turner and more recently David Storobin benefited hugely from their positions standing against Same sex marriage and this wasn’t in some outlying suburb of NY by deep blue areas that haven’t voted Republican in decades. We also saw that in the Prop 8 fight in CA that if you make the case you can easily shift independents and young voters as well as minorities into your camp. It may be an uncomfortable fight but it is a fight worth fighting. There is nothing more disturbing than the idea that the government can redefine something as basic as marriage and for what? Is there any great injustice involved by not having the govt involved in licensing of extramarital unions? No.
Being anti-gay marriage is the small government position. Marriage licenses are not rights and never have been. Marriage licensing does not prevent churches and other organizations from endorsing other unions if they so desire nor does it stop business from offering insurance and benefits as they see fit. I think homosexuals have deluded themselves into thinking that having a license will make their predominately fleeting unions more permanent which has not shown to be the case in countries that have gay marriage. All it will do is make sure that gays will have to be just as miserable as heterosexuals when they choose to divorce and for what? Why is this even an issue. Its certainly not for the good of humanity nor freedom. It at its heart undermines basic ideas of fee will and sets forth an idea that the government must regulate all classes of a certain type of activity if it chooses to regulate one class of an activity. It also promotes the radical leftist idea of de-genderization which I believe is already causing long term harm to generations of men and women who have had their reproductive years and potential families taken from them because of trying to live up to leftist ideas that just aren’t true related to sex and mating.
Sadly, though, the liberal church has allowed this issue to drive a wedge between it and its Founder, who never let Satan drive a wedge between Him and His Father. The liberal church no longer needs a wedge to be driven, because you could pass a whole mountain--a Rock--between it and its origin, proving once again that he who stands for nothing, will fall for anything.
“Why is this even an issue. Its certainly not for the good of humanity nor freedom. It at its heart undermines basic ideas of fee will and sets forth an idea that the government must regulate all classes of a certain type of activity if it chooses to regulate one class of an activity. It also promotes the radical leftist idea of de-genderization which I believe is already causing long term harm to generations of men and women who have had their reproductive years and potential families taken from them because of trying to live up to leftist ideas that just aren’t true related to sex and mating.”
That’s why the secular left is demanding this. They follow Rousseau’s idea of the state as the “liberator” of man. “Man will be independent of all his fellow men and absolutely dependent on the state.” Of course, that’s a formula for creating the largest and most tyrannical government there is. In their mind, the natural family and the church must be destroyed and replaced with the all powerful “compassionate” state.
We are a species endowed with reproductive sexual differentiation. There are two sexes ---and only two--- because the two sexes cooperate for procreation. They do this by sexual union: the union of the sexes. That's why a man can't marry a man, by the way: two men can't achieve an act of sexual union, i.e. one which unites the sexes.
"Gender," on the other hand, can mean anything or nothing in particular. You could say there are three (male-female-neuter) but some languages have gender differences for animate - inanimate or edible - inedible. And some languages are arbitrary, such as Spanish where piedra (leg) is feminine but brazo (arm) is masculine. And so on.
I don't wasnt to get all academic here, I dislike the word "gender" as applied to anything except grammar.
You could speak of gay marriage as "sexually segregated" and normal heterosexual marriage as "sexually integrated" or "balanced". Heterosexual marriage celebrates sexual diversity. Gay marriage doesn't.
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.