When people will be taught from an early age that gay is acceptable, gay is good, there is nothing wrong or bad about it, even how pleasurable and fun it can be…… how many of them, when reaching sexual maturity, might not be tempted to experiment with homosexuality?
After all, why not? No educator or public instance will have ever taught them that there is anything wrong, bad, or immoral about this once this is a policy approved and imposed by government. In fact, it will probably be just the opposite!
And what effect will this have on the time-honored ideal of the sexual relationship as the union of a man and a woman legitimately united in a bond of wondrous, life-giving power?
It will utterly corrupt this ideal! It will desecrate it! It will make impossible any ideal of the the sexual relationship once it is divorced from procreation and leave a gaping hole that will invite sexual anarchy. And sexual anarchy is simply anarchy!
The politics of homosexuality is an appallingly corruptive force!
This is wrong on so many levels. You are stating unequivocally that we are all CHOOSING to be heterosexual. You are wrong.
ReplyDeleteI love posts which start off with such wild eyed commentary as...
ReplyDeleteThis is wrong on so many levels.
Well, here is a statement that is wrong...
You are stating unequivocally that we are all CHOOSING to be heterosexual.
That was not stated at all. At most you could qualify the post as stating that some people may need to make that choice to have certain outcomes.
To disagree with that statement, to disagree that people can choose if they want to, is to relegate humanity to the Calvanist or fatalist doctrines of destiny.
As Rush (the band) stated in the song "Freewill"...
You can choose from phantom fears
And kindness that can kill
I will choose a path thats clear
I will choose free will
But I qualify that to state that while homosexuality and heterosexuality may be defined as genetic dispositions, marriage is a lifestyle, and marriage is a choice. And I believe it is one open to people no matter what their disposition.
However, re-defining marriage into something else doesn't serve anyone, and does the most harm to those that accept that re-definition away from the equality, tolerance, and love that involves both sexes, and the children they potentially create between them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAll That's Left said...
ReplyDelete"This is wrong on so many levels. You are stating unequivocally that we are all CHOOSING to be heterosexual. You are wrong."
You are proceeding from the premise that hard-wired sexual orientation actually exists such that it is an immutable and fixed trait of human personality. This may be true of a very small percentage of individuals, but it ignores the role of moral and religious training, social conditioning and their influence on soccial expectations.
There is one thing that we can all be certain of, and it is that there is one human trait that is certainly hard-wired, and that is the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain.
A moral education, among other things, trains people to satisfy their need for pleasure in certain ways, and to avoid certain behaviors for other ways. It would be naive to believe that all behavior is hard-wired, that none can be influenced and changed through training, and that people will always do what comes naturally.
At the risk of getting ahead of myself, if the acceptance of homosexuality, bisexuality and eventually, pansexuality becomes the new morality, and if this should procure pleasure for people, then why would they not want to try everything and eventually incorporate what pleases them into their panoply of pleasures? After all, the old Christian moral barriers that could have possibly evoked feelings of lowered self-esteem, guilt or disgust that would have hindered such behaviors will have been removed.
So what would hinder people from seeking their sexual pleasures wherever they might find them?
Gay rights activists have been attempting to cast sexuality as an individual fatality over which no one has any control. This claim is wholly questionable, dubious, unsupported and improbable. But what they falsely focus on in this debate is whether sexuality is a question of individual choice and miss instead the true focus: the question of a societal choice!
Heterosexuality is society's CHOICE!
And through the various means that society has at its disposal, it seeks to steer individuals into this choice.
Gay rights activists challenge this societal choice, but what do they propose as an alternative? It turns out that they propose no societal choice at all, but they chart a course towards sexual anarchy, where each individual has the license to simply seek his sexual pleasures howsoever he sees fit. But sexual anarchy is simply anarchy!
So, I repeat: The politics of homosexuality is an appallingly corruptive force!
So, I repeat: The politics of homosexuality is an appallingly corruptive force!
ReplyDeleteCorruptive force -- to marriage, I would agree.
But I'll add that using marriage as a way to curb or pathologize homosexuality is equally a corruptive set of politics to the state of marriage.
Lets stick to what marriage is. I'm personally more than annoyed when people want me to care what homosexuality should be seen as, in order to provide leverage of marriage policy.
Lets concentrate on what marriage is. Let marriage be marriage and let homosexuality be homosexuality...
If you want to talk about how evil homosexuality is, go find the forums that debate that and have at it to your hearts content. There's plenty of hard-headed people to knock against that will provide endless avenues for your need to discuss this issue.
On Lawn said: "If you want to talk about how evil homosexuality is, go find the forums that debate that and have at it to your hearts content. There's plenty of hard-headed people to knock against that will provide endless avenues for your need to discuss this issue."
ReplyDeleteThe "evil" of homosexuality has a direct bearing on the issue of marriage, in case you haven't noticed.
Gay rights activists are using marriage as a political tool to gain the leverage needed to legitimize homosexuality and the gay lifestyle. I addressed that in a previous post " Why 'marriage equality' is important to gays".
The "evil" of homosexuality has a direct bearing on the issue of marriage, in case you haven't noticed.
ReplyDeleteNo, the misdirection of sexual appeasement has a direct bearing on marriage.
And marriage has no bearing on the nature of good or evil of homosexuality. Lets stop trying to turn marriage into a bludgeon here.
This seems like an interesting website with a lot of information. Could anyone tell me where I could find a simple preamble that explains the ideology here?
ReplyDeleteThe 800lb Gorilla in the room -- Op-Ed
ReplyDeleteThis isn't about Gays. It's about Marriage, Sex, and Responsible Fatherhood -- Christian
Those would work the best for what you are asking for...
Playful Walrus has a number of good position papers on the front page right now. I highly recommend them.
Feel free to peruse our archives, anything by Chairm, F. Rottles and Renee are great to read also, I can't pick just one :).
Fitz has a number of good resources at our sister-site, and his articles are very well done also.
Thanks for your inquiry...
Aw shucks, On Lawn... thanks for your praise.
ReplyDeleteI must agree with you Roberto. In the discussion of same sex "marriage" one can no more separate the evil of homosexuality from marriage consideration than one can separate the evil of pedophilia from pedophile marriages. The fact that such sexual relationships should not even exist is directly related to why such marriages should not be allowed. A society may or may not tolerate the relationships.
ReplyDeleteA society has a right to set its moral standards and can ban certain forms of sexual relationships. Our society, the USA, from its inception banned homosexual relationships and it had every right to do so because it considered the relationship immoral (evil). In Lawrence vs. Texas a split court decided to drop the ban. This does not mean that we cannot still take the position of Justice Scalia that society has a right to make moral judgments on sexual conduct. Even if homosexuals through Lawrence are now legally allowed to engage in private sodomy—and we have the possible interpretation that adult incest may be allowed also—this in no way means that the relationship itself has been declared decent or moral. It just means that the law may not prosecute such relationships. We can still recognize the relationship as depraved and therefore unfit for marriage. Lawrence did not support same sex marriage.
To not emphasize the immoral, disordered and depraved character of same sex relationships, as the Catholic Church and other denominations do, is to handicap ourselves in our struggle against same sex "marriage" and so Roberto, you are quite correct when you state, "The "evil" of homosexuality has a direct bearing on the issue of marriage."
Even if homosexuals through Lawrence are now legally allowed to engage in private sodomy—and we have the possible interpretation that adult incest may be allowed also—this in no way means that the relationship itself has been declared decent or moral. It just means that the law may not prosecute such relationships. We can still recognize the relationship as depraved and therefore unfit for marriage. Lawrence did not support same sex marriage.
ReplyDeleteAgree completely. And it also didn't equate the decency and morality of those relationships to marital relationships, which still uniquely occupy an affirmed and approved status in society whereby they are declared moral, right, proper and good and fit for procreating. Unfortunately, allowing same-sex couples to marry does equate their fitness for procreating to male-female couples that are allowed to marry, in spite of how unethical and bad for society it would be to allow such relationships to procreate.
Jose,
ReplyDeleteThe point is, marriage is not a weapon. I don't care what battle anyone has against homosexuals, marriage is not the weapon to wage it with.
Marriage needs support from everyone -- even people who self-identify as homosexuals. That support for what marriage really is will only come by relaying what marriage is. While I defend your right to do so, the fact is proclaiming your antagonists as evil, relationship immorality, etc... will do yourself the double evil of giving you the illusion of superiority, and convince many that you are not practical (or even Christian) in this cause. No amount of proving someone else as wrong will make you right.
Besides, marriage's greatest threat are not homosexuals. As a site we reverberated that charge when it was presented to us from the Watchmen on the Walls. The greatest threat to marriage are the heterosexuals who also mis-use marriage for adult needs before the needs of the whole family. Divorce, adultery, conflict in the marriage, it is the heterosexuals in their marriages which have far easier access to harm society than homosexuals. You need to address both with the same message. You need to attack the root of the problem, find what provokes all of those maladies.
The message of how marriage is right in practical terms needs to be spoken to the secular society (secular for good reason I add) in terms that do not rely on any dogma. If you focus on homosexuals, you are limiting yourself from the battle to a petty skirmish.
Come out with a message that inspires all of us, leave any petty grievance that might cause you to focus against homosexuals behind.
Like a ball and chain you might think your framing of the issue is a readily available weapon, but its only holding you back.
I agree with On Lawn. That homosexuality is moral and good doesn't mean that gay marriage is right for gays and for society. I believe that gay marriage is right, but that's separate.
ReplyDeleteArturo, its good to have you around.
ReplyDeleteBut like John Howard, you can use more honesty in how you present other's opinions.
Also, it isn't enough to say what is right for homosexuals. That kind of self-centered thinking is, as Roberto and Jose have said, corruptive.
We are talking about what is right for society, and marriage fills a specific role in ensuring equal recognition of the rights and responsibilities of all the parties involved in creating a child. Marriage may be right for gays, but removing marriage from its expectation of equal gender participation is wrong for society.
I didn't say you believe homosexuality is moral and good? I don't think you believe that. I'm agreeing with you that it's a separate issue.
ReplyDeleteAnd I didn't say it's enough to say that marriage is right for gays. Gay marriage is right for society because it reenforces what you require of marriage. Gays don't reproduce irresponsibly. In a gay marriage, the feminine and the masculine in the two people come together very nicely. Because gay men are not so lacking in what is feminine, and the same for lesbians and masculinity, two of the same sex is like a straight opposite-sex couple.
ok, that first sentence should not be a question. Please think of the question mark as a period.
ReplyDeleteIn a gay marriage, the feminine and the masculine in the two people come together very nicely.
ReplyDeleteThanks Arturo. In a world where the GLBT have invested heavily in controlling their message, it is good to have someone like you who is ready to speak freely on the subject.
However, I also know gays and lesbians and I don't think that sentence would fly with them. It doesn't for me either.
Gays don't reproduce irresponsibly.
Yes, they do. There are entire fertility clinics set up for just gays and lesbians ready to deny a child their parent or mother. Calling a parent just a sperm or egg donor is a slap in the face of the person who neglected their natural connection with the child. A parent calling themselves just a sperm or egg donor takes that neglect and turns it into a pre-meditated action which winds up being a slap in the child's face whether they mean to or not.
Replacing the model of marriage that explicitly encourages equality in recognition of the rights and responsibilities of each gender with the child they potentially create together, with a model which encourages paying people to abandon children as much as have them, is like replacing seat belts with sweat-pants.
You simply add insult to injury when you postulate that androgynous gender roles are the same thing. This isn't about gender roles which are diverse between societies and are learned behaviors, its about gender affirmation and equality.
You're welcome, it's my pleasure. Of course it doesn't fly with you. You've invested how many hours and how many thousands of words denying the truth. But the evidence is obvious. There are gay couples living very good married lives, while two straight guys trying the same would be total and complete disaster.
ReplyDeleteNo, they don't. Two gay men don't procreate irresponsibly, like the straight combinations (brother-sister, mother-son) you rightly want to deny marriage rights. There are many children in this world who would be best in the home of a gay couple or a straight infertile couple. That's probably why infertility exists in nature, and it's probably one reason homosexuality exists, so that there be good homes when the heterosexual experiment fails. Fertility clinics are unnecessary, but they'll be around as long as there's enough of you who want deny the word "parent" to who actually parents a child.
Of course it [In a gay marriage, the feminine and the masculine in the two people come together very nicely] doesn't fly with you.
ReplyDeleteCorrect...
You've invested how many hours and how many thousands of words denying the truth. But the evidence is obvious.
And this evidence is...?
There are gay couples living very good married lives, while two straight guys trying the same would be total and complete disaster.
Thanks for providing such examples to compare and contrast. You have your version of reality, and I have one too. Lets set them side by side...
Arturo's world. Masculine and feminine are required for two men to be happily gay together.
Real world. Male and female are requred when creating a child.
Arturo's world. Gays don't procreate irresponsibly. In fact fertility clinics are unnecessary for them. Because they exist because someone needs to pick up the pieces from the "heterosexual experiment".
Real world. Responsible procreation is when the man and the woman take full responsibility for raising the child the best way they know how.
But then what do you expect from the same person who said gays don't rape each other because they are so sex-hungry all the time they really just want it anyways.
Rape is a heterosexual problem, unheard-of in the gay community, because heterosexual males are by nature sex-hungry and women are not. Like I said, how many hours and thousands of words have you invested denying the truth?
ReplyDeleteRape is a heterosexual problem, unheard-of in the gay community
ReplyDeleteArturo, let me put it to you this way.
Homosexuals who rape are not "gay". I get you.
And, likewise, heterosexuals who rape are not "straight".
Fair enough?
No.
ReplyDeleteMales who rape other men are not "gay", necessarily. In prisons, heterosexually-oriented males rape other men, any weaker male will do.
Males who rape women are most definitely heterosexuals.
Was Dean Corll a homosexual? Was Jeffrey Dahmer? What about statutory rape, or doesn't that count? Is David Thorstad gay? What about David Carpenter and Joshua Macave Brown?
ReplyDeleteOh, but now you're qualifying it with "necessarily". Unlike before.
In prisons, heterosexually-oriented males rape other men, any weaker male will do.
And contrary to what's often stated now, many of these men never return to heterosexuality, and some were likely not heterosexual to begin with, even if they were not part of the "gay" subculture.
Males who rape women are most definitely heterosexuals.
But not "straight". You're narrowing the term "gay" to include most homosexuals but not the bad ones. Similarly, I'm narrowing the term "straight" to the majority of heterosexuals who are REALLY straight, not pedophile, rapist, etc. Fair enough.
You're making generalizations a lot, Arturo. Something I don't think you like when it's done to gays, or am I wrong about that?
R.K., I don't know who those individuals are, except for Jeffrey Dahmer, who I don't know to be gay but was definitely mentally disturbed. But it's interesting that you can count gays who might have raped with your fingers in one hand. On the news today, I heard that in the Congo just under a million women have recently been raped by practicing hyper-heterosexuals. It appears that these heterosexual rapists have moved on to raping men and young boys.
ReplyDeleteGay sex is what gays make of it. Straight sex is what straights make of it. The good and the bad. Heterosexual men raping women and young boys is not one of the good things about heterosexuals, or straights. Gays don't rape, which is good. They don't have to, because sex is easy, which is not always good, though sometimes it is.
Funny, what Arturo mentions over and over again is something that simply discredits him. I'm happy to him stand on that platform. But I have to point out even if there is the slightest inkling of belief it is scary how well what Arturo posits fits a number of the dangerous gay myths mentioned at gaylife at about.com.
ReplyDeleteI point this out not just for Arturo's sake but because violence between partners is a real problem that needs to be addressed in all communities. Arturo's ideals are obviously corrosive for even GLBT standards, but I can't abide them going unchecked -- for their sake.
Now lets leave it at that. Any more talk about gay rape in this thread will be deleted.
Why do people think sexuality is fluid? Did you have to choose to be straight? I tried to choose to be straight, it didn't work out for me.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if this was a slip or not but you've moved from the subject of marriage onto sexual relationships. Did you mean to? While I can relate to your stance against same sex marriage are you suggesting we go back to the days of "the love that dare not speak it's name"? No thanks.
I think we could teach children in incrimiental levels of acceptance according to their age and intelectual ability. Allowing small children to know GLBT people exist is not a horror in and of itself. Children who are educated are better prepared for the world than those who are ignorant of certain facts.
You don't have to agree with someone to understand their beliefs. I'm educated in several religions, it doesn't mean a prescribe to them. The same applies to GLBT people. Children can be taught inclusion without being taught acceptance, and we can argue the finites before a school board to set the curriculumn.
Why do people think sexuality is fluid? Did you have to choose to be straight?
ReplyDeleteMy reply from above answers this adequately. I will copy it here for your convenience...
_____________
As Rush (the band) stated in the song "Freewill"...
You can choose from phantom fears
And kindness that can kill
I will choose a path thats clear
I will choose free will
But I qualify that to state that while homosexuality and heterosexuality may be defined as genetic dispositions, marriage is a lifestyle, and marriage is a choice. And I believe it is one open to people no matter what their disposition.
However, re-defining marriage into something else doesn't serve anyone, and does the most harm to those that accept that re-definition away from the equality, tolerance, and love that involves both sexes, and the children they potentially create between them.
___________
I know I did choose to be married, and that altered who I chose as a mate. I knew I wanted someone who I could fulfill the object of marriage with, and someone I could trust in equally recognizing both of our rights and responsibilities with the children we potentially could have together.
I didn't try to re-define marriage to suit any and all relationships I might have enjoyed up to that point. I defined my relationship to fit marriage.
That is a choice.
The SSM campaign emphasizes sexual orientation and in so doing asserts the central importance of sex differentiation.
ReplyDeleteMarriage is not sex-neutral and it integrates the sexes.
There are SSMers who echo the racialist identity politics of the anti-miscegenists. Where the latter insisted on purity of race, the former insist on purity of sexual orientation. Yet marriage is indifferent to both criteria.
There are SSMers who pose as officiandos of this or that religion and yet, when challenged directly on substance, runaway and complain that this or that religion is bigoted because it does not give primacy to gay identity politics.
It is the same tune sang by the racialists. That song has long been repudiated. SSMers have not come up with anything that refutes that repudiation of identity politics. So they claim to be experts on what they are not. And the first thing they are not experts on is marriage. So they turn to what they are experts on: same-sex sexual proclivity. And even at that they insist on purity -- echoing the racialists.
Mr Hosty,
ReplyDeleteI want to also note that your post went from marriage, to sexuality, to introducing the subject of educating "small children" about homosexuality.
Did you mean to do that?
For clarification's sake let's remember that this thread is not about marriage, it's about sex.
ReplyDeleteMr Hosty,
ReplyDeleteSince when do you decide what a "thread is not about" on this site?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry On Lawn, these are your rules aren't they?
ReplyDeleteLOL, lets quickly recap...
ReplyDeleteMr Hosty: >>> I'm not sure if this was a slip or not but you've moved from the subject of marriage onto sexual relationships.
He then goes on from there to advocate teaching homosexuality to "small children".
Ibid: >> For clarification's sake let's remember that this thread is not about marriage, it's about sex.
And the punchline,
Ibid: > I'm sorry On Lawn, these are your rules aren't they?
The real punchline is that you pretend to give a "defense" or marriage through logic, yet all too often your comments are about a person, just like now. Look at that logic black belt go! LOL...
ReplyDeleteLets go through this now...
ReplyDeleteMr Hosty: >>> I'm not sure if this was a slip or not but you've moved from the subject of marriage onto sexual relationships.
(Emphasis added)
Ibid: >> For clarification's sake let's remember that this thread is not about marriage, it's about sex.
And the new punchline,
Ibid: > you pretend to give a "defense" or marriage through logic, yet all too often your comments are about a person
Your website suggests you focus on marriage, this article focused on sex instead of marriage. Is that really hard to follow?
ReplyDeleteMarriage and sexuality are disparate subjects to you?
ReplyDeleteNeither all marriages are "consumated" by sex, nor are all sex acts within the parameters marriage.
ReplyDeleteWow, slow week here huh? The comments are hardly moving.
That doesn't mean disparate. Marriage and sexuality are disparate subjects to you? Or are they related?
ReplyDeleteSo, John, I take it thus you would have no problem with people getting married who are just friends.
ReplyDeleteTo clarify the above: I know, that's already legal and already happens. Sometimes. But do you want it to be a common cultural understanding of marriage that it may be between mere friends?
ReplyDeleteYou still don't see, do you, how under your reasoning here your whole case for still opposing sibling marriage logically fails.
On Lawn, what's your point? RK, I'm not so against sibling marriage that if there was a public outcry in favor of it that I would stand in the way.
ReplyDeleteJust like gay marriage doesn't effect you (I'm not wrongfully assuming you're straight am I?) sibling marriage doesn't effect me, I'm an only child! ;)
Mr Hosty, don't you mean what is my question?
ReplyDeleteSure I'm happy to repeat it though I don't know how you missed it before :)
Marriage and sexuality are disparate subjects to you? Or are they related?
Just like gay marriage doesn't effect you (I'm not wrongfully assuming you're straight am I?) sibling marriage doesn't effect me, I'm an only child! ;)
ReplyDeleteYou know, John, it always comes back to this broken record. How many times do we have to say it? The issue isn't whether it affects me or you. It's whether it affects future generations. The fact that you can't see beyond your situation, as an only child, to even ask how it would affect brothers and sisters in the future, says a lot. Advocates of neutered marriage/SSM, and indeed the "cultural left" in general, do not see (or, more importantly, even ask) beyond the "me" and "now". Hence they find it hard to understand how anyone else can either.