Posted on 06/24/2011 12:43:51 PM PDT by lbryce
WILL the New York State Legislature ultimately put itself on the right side of history by allowing same-sex couples to marry? Many of us in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, amazed at how quickly public opinion has evolved on this issue, are eager for this historic civil rights victory.
My hope comes with some worry, however.
While many in our community have worked hard to secure the right of same-sex couples to marry, others of us have been working equally hard to develop alternatives to marriage. For us, domestic partnerships and civil unions aren’t a consolation prize made available to lesbian and gay couples because we are barred from legally marrying. Rather, they have offered us an opportunity to order our lives in ways that have given us greater freedom than can be found in the one-size-fits-all rules of marriage.
It’s not that we’re antimarriage; rather, we think marriage ought to be one choice in a menu of options by which relationships can be recognized and gain security. Like New York City’s mayor, Michael R. Bloomberg, who has been in a relationship for over 10 years without marrying, one can be an ardent supporter of marriage rights for same-sex couples while also recognizing that serious, committed relationships can be formed outside of marriage.
Here’s why I’m worried: Winning the right to marry is one thing; being forced to marry is quite another. How’s that? If the rollout of marriage equality in other states, like Massachusetts, is any guide, lesbian and gay people who have obtained health and other benefits for their domestic partners will be required by both public and private employers to marry their partners in order to keep those rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Hey, New York Slimes! Here at FR we are on to all the slime you choose to propagate.
in the tab
This writer is confirming what many of us fear. Namely, that monogamous homosexual marriage is just a way station on the way to fulfilling another agenda.
Some gays activists have said that the goal is to force monogamous marriage on society. Then, having established the concept of homosexual marriage, they can move on from there to “polyamory”, “polygamy”, or groups of people of any gender living together as family units. Once they demolish the concept of monogamous opposite sex marriage, then it will pave the way for any other type of relationship having to be legally recognized. Eventually there will be lawsuits to force recognition of groups of people living together on the same legal basis as marriage.
Note how she laments that in Massachusetts, the norm of monogamy hasn’t been lifted yet?????
They’re so bold these days, it just baffles the mind. They’re out to destroy our society, and they as much as say so in public. I really hope this latest offensive backfires massively.
Why don’t gays be honest and say they want to be “married” for the financial benefits instead of all the blather about wanting to legalize a “committed relationship”.
Money is the least of the reasons. The real reasons are explained in their own words. They want to destroy the meaning of marriage and family and remake society to suit them. Into a sodomy free for all.
From LA Times of March 12: ...
“Divided over gay marriage” by Roy Rivenburg Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor who runs the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission, recommends legalizing a wide variety of marriage alternatives, including polyamory, or group wedlock. An example could include a lesbian couple living with a sperm-donor father, or a network of men and women who share sexual relations.
One aim, she says, is to break the stranglehold that married heterosexual couples have on health benefits and legal rights. The other goal is to “push the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and in the process transform the very fabric of society.” ... [snip]
An excerpt from: In Their Own Words: The Homosexual Agenda:
“Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 1994):
“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... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake —and one that would perhaps benefit all of society—is to transform the notion of family entirely.”
“Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.”
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.”
[Also among the demands was the elimination of all age of consent laws.]
They want the "right" to be married but they don't actually want to BE married, all of those unmarried "partnerships" will no longer be eligible for employer benefits.
They want the "right" to be married but they don't actually want to BE married, all of those unmarried "partnerships" will no longer be eligible for employer benefits.
Bill Ayers said that the Weather Underground engaged in partner swapping and that he engaged in same sex relations to “smash monogamy”.
Sex positive “revolutionaries” want to end all moral judgements over all sexual pairings regardless of sex, age, relation, marital status, number, or species of partners.
FMCDH(BITS)
Will be a billion plus legal industry. Can’t wait for the palimony suits to start hitting in California.
They also want to target churches. Any church refusing to do a ‘gay marriage’ can lose its tax exempt status. NEVER hear this mentioned.
Scientifically, none of the studies has been reproducible.
The 1993 Hamer study Cherry Picked the Data. Did not have a control group and did not check on the brothers of Gay men in the study (an obvious data point)
The 1991 Gay Twin study by Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard also excluded checks on any brothers. The theory that gay twins were 100% gay turned out to be false.
The “Hypothalamus Study,” conducted in 1991 by Dr. Simon LeVay was supposedly based on the idea that cadavers of 19 men of which only 6 he knew the sexual proclivities. The sample was too small, had questionable conclusions and has not been reproducable.
In logical fact, a gay gene would exclude itself from the human genome according to natural selection theories. Gays with the gene would not reproduce and therefore the majority would not pass on any theoretical gene.
No, the "Gay Gene" theory is Bunkus and so is the rush to make Gay Marriage the law of the country. The big result of such would be the end of free speech. Just ask any Orthodox Priest or Pastor in Canada.
don’t think they won’t inlcude incest and pedophilia in that
We’re doomed.
Pedophilia is definitely part of the “gay” agenda they don’t want to publically mention too much at this point. We’re not “ready” - although some psychologists have promoted it as harmless or even healthy for some time.
those “psychologists” are nuts
I don’t see us as doomed; but as close to a healing crisis. I think we’ll hit rock bottom - almost there - and then turn around the other way - back to moral principles.
Rough road, though.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Just a reminder of why the homosexual agenda pushers really want same sex marriage. Plus, to destroy our freedoms of speech, association and religion.
Thank you Sir for you enlighten post.
Bookmarked... thank you for digging this article out of the sewer.
Thank you - I got those quotes years ago and the first one doesn’t have a date, but you can clearly see they reveal themselves in their own words.
(Btw I’m a ma’am but it’s hard to tell from my name!)
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.