The picture many of us have of same-sex marriage is that homosexual couples will be doing the same thing as heterosexuals, but with the same-sex partner to which they are attracted, as opposed to an opposite-sex partner. For at least many gay activists, this is perceived as stifling and limiting. At one point I had the idea that same-sex marriage might be a good thing because it would push gay people in the direction of lifelong faithfulness and discourage promiscuity. Many in the gay community don't want to be pushed in that direction, however.
This is an admittedly pro-family site, but the question still arises.
But I wonder if people in the gay Christian community react this way.
10 comments:
This article says everything that needs to be said on this particular subject. Could not possibly be clearer.
For those in denial about the existence of "slippery slopes", I offer you this. We're on the slope right now, rushing headlong into the abyss.
I'd like to make a prediction. All of those advocates for same sex marriage who pooh-poohed anyone bringing up polygamy, claiming it would never happen, will now be the loudest in declaring anyone opposed to polygamy a bigot. And all their previous assurances on the subject will be either conveniently forgotten or outright denied that they were ever made.
Yet another superb analysis of this latest insane 5 to 4 decision by the Supreme Court.
For those idiots out there claiming this somehow settles things, you don't settle an argument by a single vote, and certainly not by simply shouting the other side down (with cries of "Bigot!" and Hater!").
In a weird sort of way, the article's gloom and doom predictions give me some measure of comfort, in that "This can't go on." The piper will have to be paid. Or, as in the words of an old TV commercial (I believe about butter), "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature!"
I wish I could say that I was stunned (but I wasn't) by an article in a Baltimore newspaper today by an atheist commentator, championing the idea that no one should have any more children - that it was time for the human race to call it quits.
A few choice quotes from the article:
"When you have kids you want them to have it better than you did, right? Well, that's impossible. Things are going to come crumbling down. No empire lasts forever. Plus the climate. And China. Or ISIS. Or white supremacists. Your kid could shoot up a church."
"Even if you manage to give your kid a better life than you had - well, it will be at the cost of the millions of other kids who don't get the resources that your kid got. You either support inequality or support your kid having a worse life than you."
"I will pass on creating a new being for all these very bad things to happen to."
What's that got to do with the Supreme Court decision? Everything. The same philosophy of nihilism and despair expressed above is what gave rise to the trends so destructive to the family we see in the culture all around us.
Like I've said before, atheism is a form of cultural suicide. We see it in Europe today. We may see it in the USA tomorrow. Thank God for Africa and Asia! (Squeeze the balloon here, and it just pops out there. You can't kill the truth. All you can do is to suppress it - and even that, only for a time.)
Jezu ufam tobie!
I have heard gay activists admit that what they really want is to eliminate marriage all together. Perhaps marriage will be returned to the churches and irrelevant to society.
Perhaps marriage will be returned to the churches
If only that were possible! It would be the ideal outcome of all this. But marriage was never the motivation behind this entire dust-up. Make no mistake, it was hatred of Christianity. All the spewing accusations of bigot and hater that the proponents of same sex "marriage" engaged in was nothing but pure projection. The true hatred has always been on their side, from the very beginning.
And now that they've tasted blood, why should they stop now? Start looking for the nearest catacomb!
I'll soon be 58. All my life, I have expected that within my lifetime -- here in America -- we would be seeing the State, under the control of leftists, actively persecuting and murdering Christians.
Frankly, I expected it before now. For, when I was a kid, it was obvious to me that the people running the country didn't really wish to oppose, much less defeat, the leftism that was communism.
Then came Reagan, and communism went into the "dustbin of history", and it looked as though my expectation of being murdered by my rulers wouldn't come to pass. Imagine my disappointment.
However, the leftists never went away ... and they will never forgive America for giving the Soviet utopia that last little push.
"This is an admittedly pro-family site, but the question still arises."
Everything said in the piece has long been well-known to anyone who cared to know. In a year or two, when the oh-so-predictable "Who knew?" starts up, the proper response is, "*You* knew, but preferred to pretend ignorance".
Oh, Ilion,
I try.. I do try to see your good side, but then something like the above comes out. You are so blinded by your selective hatred for "the Left" that you cannot see how it deprives you of the ability to clearheadedly analyze things as they are. The enemy is not the Left or the Right, but rather political extremism of any flavor. Yes, I totally agree with you in that the Left has been a principle slaughterer of the Innocents in the past century (the Soviet Union, Maoist China, North Korea, etc., etc.). But the right has had its dictatorships as well (Salazar's Portugal, Franco's Spain, Pinochet's Chile, Batista's Cuba, the Salvadoran Death Squads and the Contras.. not to mention the elephant in the room, Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy, Militarist Japan - etc., etc.)
I can't see how being ground under rightist boots is any less unpleasant than to fall under leftist ones.
I recall nostalgically Victor's and my good friend Joe Sheffer, who steadfastly described himself as a "middle of the road extremist". We could use some more of that.
Jezu ufam tobie!
I don't understand why is "faithfulness" be a good thing for same-sex couples?
I mean, from traditionalist point of view, closeted promiscuous gayness is preferable to "faithful" open gayness.
Post a Comment