TO THE EDITOR: Same-sex marriage debate may never be settled

The Macomb County Advisor & Source ^ | November 1, 2014 | Paul Doveinis

[2ndDivisionVet]

Every time I read some type of apologetic article from the LGBT community, I get irritated. Not because of someone's right to express their opinions, but because of the utter inability to recognize the foolishness of their own arguments. Such was the case when I read Mark Cichewicz's recent letter to the editor, "No protections for the LGBT community." While I agree that people should not be discriminated based on race, age, gender, sexual orientation, etc., why does the LGBT community want to add "gender identity" to the list and why is it even brought up as a new category? How can there be confusion about one's gender? Isn't it very easy to ascertain? To add gender identity as some type of new protected class is to open the door for any man to walk into a woman's restroom, spa, locker room, etc., claiming that he's been born in the "wrong" body. We have enough problems with pedophiles and other sexual predators, and shouldn't introduce a new enabler.

Furthermore, this whole same-sex "marriage" issue must be addressed and carefully delineated at its core. First and foremost, throughout the history of civilized society, marriage has always been defined as the union of one man and one woman. Anything outside of that definition has been rightly viewed as aberrant. Two men cannot get "married." Two women cannot get "married." Unless and until people recognize that this is, in fact, a redefinition, the same-sex "marriage" debate will never be settled. I have a little more respect for people who've coined the phrase same-sex "union," because at least they understand what many are trying to destroy, namely, marriage as a unique man/woman covenant established and sanctioned by God and long-recognized as such throughout human history....

[exDemMom]

Well, yes... Every time I see that some court has overturned restrictions against same-sex “marriage”, I have to scratch my head. If they are going to make such rulings, they should be compelled to define exactly what same-sex “marriage” is—because it certainly is NOT the legal framework that has developed to protect what is essentially a biological relationship that naturally developed for the protection of children, which is fundamental to our survival as a race.

[JimRed]

Discard the term “gender identity” and substitute “mental illness”.

HOMOSEXUAL, because there’s nothing GAY about it.

[Gaffer]

No, it won’t. Because in the end it boils down to the unpleasant fact that these proponents do unpleasant things to and with each other in the privacy of their own bedrooms, secure in the knowledge that do-gooder feeling liberals have their backs.

The fact is that the practice is rooted in deviance and perversion and all manner of diversion, peer pressured social acceptance and attack on those who object.

We see TV shows of “loving, affectionate humans” liking and loving each other on the surface. Any child who see this can’t disagree with “like”. What they don’t realize and will never be shown by media is that this “like” hides some pretty disgusting scenes. I don’t advocate this, but I firmly believe that if you were to show a child what really happens behind closed doors with Mommy and Mommy or Daddy and Daddy, the child would immediately cringe. It is an inherent aversion, built-in, natural and justly so. Any attempt to make it otherwise is just plain evil.

[highball]

Well, yes... Every time I see that some court has overturned restrictions against same-sex “marriage”, I have to scratch my head. If they are going to make such rulings, they should be compelled to define exactly what same-sex “marriage” is—because it certainly is NOT the legal framework that has developed to protect what is essentially a biological relationship that naturally developed for the protection of children, which is fundamental to our survival as a race.

But that's exactly why we lost the fight. Once we allowed gays to adopt children, we lost that whole argument.

If they can have kids - from prior relationships, by adopting, surrogacy or whatever route - then all our "protect the family" arguments become their arguments.

The only way to stop this is to remove the state from marriage altogether, which is even more radical than what they've been able to do.

[John Leland 1789]

The debate will never be settled because there is, in truth and reality, no such thing as same-sex "marriage."

But a false legitimacy will be forced on us against truth and reality with punishments for not accepting it as reality. It will be forced on us by fines, loss of our businesses, jobs and incomes, children removed from our homes so that there will be pool of children for adoption by perverts, jail cells, and . . . .

[DJ MacWoW]

Click The Pic To Donate

Support FR, Donate Monthly If You Can

[mom of young patriots]

I would also add that it is crucial to start listening to the accounts of children who have been raised to adulthood in these unhealthy relationships. They are telling us, the ones who feel comfortable enough to tell the truth, that what they have experienced is emotional, psychological and often physical child abuse. It is pretty sick.

We need to stop viewing these parenting situations as good for children and see them as they really are - self gratification of the adults’ nurturing instincts and desire to masquerade as normal at the expense of the children’s needs.