Skip to comments.Homosexual Activist Admits True Purpose of Battle is to Destroy Marriage
Posted on 04/20/2013 5:24:12 AM PDT by rhema
Even knowing that there are radicals in all movements, doesnt lessen the startling admission recently by lesbian journalist Masha Gessen. On a radio show she actually admits that homosexual activists are lying about their radical political agenda. She says that they dont want to access the institution of marriage; they want to radically redefine and eventually eliminate it.
Here is what she recently said on a radio interview:
Its a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that its a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. (F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.
"The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I dont think it should exist. And I dont like taking part in creating fictions about my life. Thats sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.
"I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I dont see why they shouldnt have five parents legally I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that babys biological father is my brother, and my daughters biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I dont think thats compatible with the institution of marriage.
For quite some time, the defenders of natural marriage have attempted to point out that the true agenda behind the homosexual demands organizations is not marriage equality; it is the total unraveling of marriage and uprooting traditional values from society. (This will ultimately include efforts to silence and punish some churches that openly adhere to their religious teachings about marriage and sexual morality.)
While few have been as vocal as this lesbian activist was in this interview, we do have numerical examples proving her point. When given the opportunity to marry, after laws have been struck down relatively small percentages of homosexuals actually bother to marry compared to their heterosexual counterparts. This raises question about the true need to unravel marriage for the fair extension its benefits. Only 12 percent of homosexuals in the Netherlands marry compared to 86 percent of their heterosexual peers. Less than 20 percent of same-sex couples already living together in California married when given the chance in 2008. In contrast, 91 percent of heterosexual couples in California who are living together are married.
Clearly this is about cultural change and tearing down the traditional family ethic, since it seems that most homosexuals living together neither need nor desire to marry, though they do desire to radically change marriage.
Gays and lesbians are free to live as they choose, and we live in a society which roundly applauds them doing so like never before in our history, but they do not have the right to rewrite marriage for all of society.
Interspousal financial transfers are tax free, even avoiding estate taxes. Legal polygamy/polyandry would be an effective end-run around the estate tax.
I’m against gay marriage but if you really want to know what destroyed marriage, it was no-fault divorce and the 60s sexual “revolution” that made living together and sleeping around OK.
That’s true, but that’s not relevant here.
Slightly off target...the real aim of the anti-marriage folks is against Christianity. That is their target.
No, its purpose is to destroy religious freedom. Once these perverted laws become the “norm”, the next step will be to demand their marraiges be conducted in churches, “just like every other loving couple”. If the church refuses, they will be sued, using the full force and power of the government, all with the enthusiastic backing of the Demonic Party.
It will be a relentless attack on churches of all faiths (except Islam) as these demented evil souls will not be satisfied with using churches that have turned their back on God by marrying same sex couples; they will demand their services be held at those churches that adhere to God’s word, until none exist.
Yes it is. We would not have gay marriage if marriage had not been suffering blow after blow over the past 30 to 40 years. Conservatives like to think that gay marriage is what is destroying marriage. They don’t like to be reminded that marriage was in a lot of trouble way before gay marriage. Look at the generational statistics — young people don’t marry and many have kids out of wedlock. Marriage is turning into the exception rather than the rule among thge lower and even middle classes. Even if there was no gay marriage, marriage would have been in great danger of being destroyed by non-gays. I’m not arguing for gay marriage, but articles like this allow conservatives to fool themselves into thinking that gay marriage is what is destroying traditional marriage.
The underlying motive behind leftism and its destruction is envy, a dark and evil force.
You miss my point, and the point of the article. What you said is factual, but the insertion of facts at an inappropriate part of a debate is not beneficial. You also are guilty of false conflation. Sure, everything you mentioned has weakened marriage, and made if vulnerable - but that doesn’t make it the same thing as forces who are setting out to destroy marriage.
By your definition, using an anlogy and logic, any institution that is weakened by it’s own imperfection deserves to be destroyed by those who hate it in the first place. To harp on this now is just absurd, even though you are using some factual information as the basis of your opinionated blowhardiness....
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Don’t forgery Marxism. Marriage is the root of evil for Marxist. It teaches and propagates the concept of property, the great enemy of equality, and has long been seen as an enemy of the utopian state, where it is the state that functions as the parent, with the biological parents as no more than replaceable baby sitters. Google Marxism with androgeny. Interesting results.
The success of the Sodomites is a symptom. The appearance of sodomite control, inter alia, points to the fact that those who once governed have abdicated, we can no longer exclude. Exclusion is the hallmark of a great people. The “Big Tent,” “Room at th Table” symbolize the passing of the great ones.
see #26....heck read the whole thing
They don’t want to hear it. Conservatives today don’t want to acknowledge the hand they had it creating this mess and a lot of them will attack you for holding up that mirror in front of them. For God’s sake, don’t remind them who the first governor was to sign no fault divorce into law. Don’t remind them which political platform nationalized child support enforcement, providing more incentives to kick fathers out of the family. Don’t remind them that they made one deal with the devil after another to get favors from fedgov for married people at the expense of single people, then bitched when big brother started attaching strings to those decades of favors.
To destroy a country from within, the family must be destroyed. Families are the building blocks of any society.
Yes, they are also trying to destroy freedom of religion. But the church has always been fertilized by the blood of the martyrs. The church has become insipid in our country. Once Christians become convinced it is under serious attack, it will only become stronger.
In a war between homosexuals and God, the outcome is a no-brainer.
You have a real hard time with conflation - I would say “hyper conflation” in fact.
That been said, the same people behind the present abomination also engineered the original paradigm shift of the 60s.
Exactly. We would not be having a “gay marriage” debate today if non-gays, many of whom were conservative, did not first turn marriage from a lifelong commitment into a convenience to be thrown away once the husband and wife started fighting, or one of them became sexually attracted to someone else.
Well, but there is an ideological continuity at work here. I once heard Bay Buchanan speak here in Springfield and she made an interesting case how the Marxist theory of absolute equality was a factor in the rise of feminism, which was the driving force for “liberating” women from antiquated divorce laws which treated her as mere property of the male. And when that didn’t bring utopia, the biological inequity of having to bear children became the next milestone to seek. But the “free love” revolution still did not succeed in bringing equality, so marriage as a government-encouraged institution is the next logical hurdle. It was an interesting talk for her to give on a secular campus. Sponsored by Young Republicans. I wish more people understood the unified ideological fronts we face, and showing how gay marriage is just one point on the continuum of the Marxist evolution to utopia provides a beneficial understanding of what, really, we are up against.
I agree with your “ideological continuity” theory totally, but that was not the point some others were making. Somewhere along that continuum, we cross a mid point - from the flawed execution of those who believe in marriage to the evil intent of those who hate it and want to destroy it. But yes, it is a liberal continuum....
...By a gay preacher. Yes it gets worse. Example: Gay "married" preacher applies for a job at a church. The church refuses because he is gay, but particularly because he is a "married" gay. Law suit...the gay preacher is hired...and is harassed...congregation is divided. Gay preacher wants to preach...he is refused...law suit...he preaches to an almost empty sanctuary...game, set, match.
ooops, sorry...don’t look below.
We — Christians, conservatives and other non-gays — need to look in the mirror. Saying that gay marriage is destroying marriage is a cop out. It makes it sound like marriage was some strong, vibrant institution and then all the sudden gays came along and tried to destroy marriage with gay marriage. That is simply not true. Marriage, as an institution, has been on life support for years. As a prior poster said, the sick institution is susceptible to any infection. A strong institution would have been able to brush gay marriage off. And once the gay marriage debate is done, we will move on to the next one — polygamy or even easier divorce laws, or lowering the consent age to accomodate immigrant cultures. We — normal, average, heterosexual Americans — caused this problem by making marriage more convenient for us. Allowing us to hop in and out of marriage and making it OK to live together and sleep around. We can’t now turn around and blame it all on gays.
I doubt you’ll ever understand this, but I’ll throw it out for others to think about: your facts are correct. Everything you said about how marriage has been weakened by those married is absolutely correct. This weakened state of marriage has made it more vulnerable to attacks from the outside.
HOWEVER, the attacks from the outside ARE NOT THE SAME AS THE PROBLEMS FROM THE INSIDE. You are using a liberal argument here: your fallacy is just as bad as libs who said “America deserved 9-11” because of America’s flaws. You know, America deserves the “outside” attacks because of “inside” flaws.
Again, I know, you won’t be able to connect these dots...but others will. Also, I’ll throw in one off the cuff theory for free: you sound trapped in a miserable marriage and resentful of those who escaped one.
We need to look in the mirror and get a little reading comprehension actually. The point of this article....THE POINT OF THIS ARTICLE.....was that a gay activist was admitting that destruction of marriage was really their goal. All of your attempts to stay above the fray by blaming us first (altho your points are accurate) proves that you were not able to follow the logic of the article.
Witness this declaration from an evangelical denomination:
God created people male and female, and provided for the marriage relationship in which two may become one. A publicly declared, legally binding marriage between one woman and one man is the one appropriate place for sexual intercourse. Heterosexual marriage, faithfulness within marriage, abstinence outside of marriagethese constitute the Christian standard. When we fall short, we are invited to repent, receive the forgiveness of God, and amend our lives.
We recognize that Gods gift of sexuality is like a deep and swiftly moving river, beautiful, mysterious, and powerful. The boundaries of Scripture must be built into our lives in order for this immense power to be a source of blessing rather than destruction. Therefore, we call upon pastors, church members, and Christian families to forsake silence about sexuality and to declare Gods truth about the beauty and potential of sexuality and to warn and counsel with compassion when it is misused. In the local church, we encourage ministries to address these needs:
to teach children, teens, and adults the biblical basis for the Christian standard of sexuality.
to prepare people for marriage and enrich marriages.
to affirm the gift of singleness and welcome singles into the full life of the congregation.
to oppose the proliferation of pornography and prostitution.
to care for persons involved in sexual sins such as adultery, homosexual behavior and promiscuity, compassionately recognizing the potential of these sins to take the form of addiction.
to teach the dangers and harm of spousal abuse, sexual abuse and sexual harassment, seeking to prevent these sins in Christian homes and lives.
to compassionately care for the victims of sexual sins of all kinds.
No, just a little tired of people pissing and moaning about the how the crab grass is ruining the lawn when the foundation and roof of the house have collapsed.
Marriage used to be an institution that was big enough to take care of itself. I’m sure conservatives ignoring the role they played in screwing that up makes them feel better about themselves but it doesn’t absolve them.
What you cannot seem to get thru your noggin is that this thread was started by a single premise: that the enemies of marriage have finally admitted what we all knew from the start: that their goal was not to JOIN marriage, it was to DESTROY marriage. That is what THIS THREAD IS ABOUT.
That has absolutely nothing to do with the many flaws of those who are in marriages. Your facts are correct. You still hyper conflated the issues......this is not about “pissing and moaning” at all. This is simply about the enemy admitting they are the enemy. Period. So why don’t you just go find an article....I am sure there are thousands....about how married folks have invited this hell storm on themselves by their own actions. That would be a valid thread.
BUT IT WOULD BE A SEPARATE THREAD, A SEPARATE ISSUE!!!!!!
WHUT U SAYS??
I’ll throw in some of my own off the cuff advice: personally attacks and repeatedly claiming someone will never understand are not ways to persuade people or win arguments.
It takes (a) Village People.
Well heck, life on a message board may just be too much for you. I admitted I was just tweaking you with that last jab (duh, that’s what “throw in for free” meant) - and yet, you make that the focus of your response. Dang, if I didn’t know better, I’d assume I HIT PAYDIRT.
Having said that, message board debates are rarely about winning the one you are debating (though I rec’d some pvt mails this week that I did do that) - it’s about sharp contrasts being pointed out for others. I knew you were too bitter over this to change....
Sorry about messing up your echo chamber.
The only thing you messed up was your relevance to the issue at hand. You still don’t understand it. You brought up another issue....related...but another issue nonetheless....and a valid one....but you just couldn’t step back and admit that is what happened. Stubborn? Poor reading comp? Overly emotional? Pick one.
It is Opinionated Blowhard who has the better of this argument. The point is that “homosexual marriage” is the mop-up activity of the destruction of marriage that was accomplished primarily through no-fault divorce, the acceptance of contraception, and therefore of separating the unitive and procreative aspects of sex, and therefore vitiating one of the foundations of marriage, and in a cyclical way, the imposition of legal abortion on demand.
Put another way, “homosexual marriage” is more symptom than cause. Opposing the deep, structural changes that are evidenced by “homosexual marriage” by opposing “homosexual marriage,” itself, is feckless. The foundations for those deep, structural changes were established when we got rid of “till death do us part,” and “they stayed together for the sake of the children,” and “if you knocked her up, you’re going to marry her,” and “I’m not that kind of girl, after all, I have a reputation [and a desire not to have children till married] to protect.”
It was all these things that have led people to generally think that marriage is about recognition of the romantic attachments of persons rather than about a permanent relationship and bond dually meant to provide companionship and consolation to a man and woman together and to provide a stable environment for the rearing of any children that might proceed therefrom.
“Homosexual marriage” is just the pimple on the butt of the heretofore strictly heterosexual destruction of marriage.
THAT'S the point.
I’m sorry that your arguments inability to withstand challenge is causing you such frustration.
Thank you for your reply. With due respect, you still miss the point. Blowhards argument is NOT PERTINENT to this thread, which was my only point. It seems to me that perhaps you didn’t read the original article, and somehow missed my repeated - repeated - repeated claims that everything Blowhard said was actually correct. Please go back and re read at least the headline.....and then try and tell me that this event is not significant....in and of itself.
Quite the contrary dude....I came to this thread happy with the subject of the thread. The kill joys then came in off topic.