NY Activist Message: Marriage Is So Gay

marriage is so gay

Marriage includes no sexual orientation requirement.

Only a gender requirement: One man + One woman

Just thought I’d post a little reminder of why marriage is so important to society. For gay activists, marriage is not about stability for society. It is not about providing the next generation with a mom and a dad. It is not about tolerance.

It is about forcing total acceptance. Redefining marriage has consequences that are subtle but far reaching.

Contact your local, state, and national leaders. Develop relationships with them. Put their numbers in your cell phone. If you have a state amendment, remind your reps to support the DOMA. If you don’t have a state amendment, ask them to present one in your legislature.

<>PA

photo

Advertisements

22 Comments

  1. Pearl said,

    May 18, 2009 at 10:45 pm

    The wording on their t-shirts is particularly ironic considering the recent advertisments released by GLSEN (and featuring Hilary Duff) admonishing teens to stop using the word “gay” to describe anything other than the homosexual lifestyle.

    However, my marriage is quite “happy and bright.” How nice of them to note that such is the result achieved from marriage between one man and one woman. :0)

  2. Chairm said,

    May 19, 2009 at 7:36 am

    The two guys in the photo look like siblings.

    Or two buddies who’d rather remain married to their wives than be gay divorcees.

    Heh.

  3. Becky said,

    May 19, 2009 at 10:23 am

    I so appreciate your blog. Thank you for your devotion to preserving marriage as God designed and invented it. We must always honor God, and no matter what happens in the corrupt societies we live in, God will honor us. Love in the name of Christ…Becky

  4. Euripides said,

    May 19, 2009 at 3:41 pm

    The intended and unintended consequences of same sex marriage stagger the imagination. We’ve already seen the ideas of total acceptance pushed at the earliest years in grade schools. We’ve seen the attacks on religion and religious people. We’ve seen the public denouncements of people such as Carrie Prejean.

    And they’re the ones calling us intolerant.

  5. Scott said,

    May 20, 2009 at 12:00 am

    Reading this blog makes me ashamed to be LDS. It does make me proud to be gay. After all, you’re fighting a losing battle. You’re on the ugly side of the battle for truth. Your children and grandchildren will have a difficult time honoring your name wholly. They will say things like, “Well, grandma was a great person. But you never bring up gay anything cause she went crazy. But those were different times.” They’ll have to make excuses for your actions.

    The future is ours. You can keep your dark past.

  6. Anna said,

    May 20, 2009 at 9:04 am

    Hello Scott,

    I’m interested in hearing your views as a gay LDS person. First, a few questions that I will need answered: Do you hold a temple recommend? Are you finding strength in Jesus and not participating in same sex attraction? Or are you speak about a different off shoot of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?

    Anna

  7. Euripides said,

    May 20, 2009 at 9:38 am

    Why is it that so many gay activists try to derail the real issue – preserving marriage – by attacking religion? The issue here is the definition of marriage, between a man and a woman. It isn’t about who is gay or “gay rights.” This issue is one of protecting marriage from further onslaughts to try and neuter it.

  8. rubyeliot said,

    May 20, 2009 at 10:14 am

    I’m still confused about why everyone talks about mormons? Yeah they did a lot. It’s really awesome. It’s really awesome that so many religions have spoken out about this issue.

    and you are right euripides gay rights has nothing really do with a marriage license. tons of people are excluded from marriage: siblings, single people, cousins (sometimes).

    it’s about how we organize our society. gender matters. kids need a mom and a dad. marriage unites the two genders that make up humanity: man and woman.

  9. Euripides said,

    May 20, 2009 at 10:27 am

    Ruby:

    Isn’t it amazing how Mormons become the whipping post of gay activism? What is it with these people and their obsession with Mormons? Can it be that they perceive Mormons as holding universal moral values that they themselves wish would just go away?

    If gays wish to promote their version of identity politics, they’ll need to demonstrate real oppression – such as Blacks and women suffered. This made-up oppression of Mormonism, Christianity, and religion in general doesn’t pass the test.

  10. agnes said,

    May 20, 2009 at 11:44 am

    Euripides, that’s such an ancient Greek, and therefore gay gay gay gay name. I suggest a different handle and a quick history lesson.

  11. Euripides said,

    May 20, 2009 at 11:50 am

    Thank you Agnes! You have proved my point and the point of this post very nicely. I don’t expect any better from gay activists, leftist liberals, and statists intent on political power. You’ve indeed proved my expectations.

    Thanks again for your comment.

  12. May 20, 2009 at 12:05 pm

    8<——– Snip! Off topic ———–

  13. rubyeliot said,

    May 20, 2009 at 1:53 pm

    Agnes: is that really all you’ve got? telling Euripides his name is “gay gay gay gay.”
    wow.
    impressive.

  14. Pearl said,

    May 20, 2009 at 2:18 pm

    How does a post on inappropriate t-shirts (in relation to the homosexual “marriage” debate) become a discussion bent on routing Mormons? That is the question, Personal Failure. And if you will note, Scott (“ashamed to be LDS and proud to be gay”) is the first person to bring it up, not a traditional marriage proponent. Therefore, Euripides has a valid point in suggesting that gay marriage advocates have a strong, strong tendency to lead the misdirected charge against religion (and specifically Mormons, in this case).

    What is the point of “revealing” an individual’s religious affliations with regard to this marriage debate, PF? Tell me, please, what you gained by doing that? I feel so badly for you because you are obviously a very hurt person lashing out with sarcasm and anger, and it seems as though you have this deep-seeded need to expose “conspiracy” where obviously none exists. Any time you’d like me to share that testimony with you, feel free to let me know. I mean that. Unlike Scott, I am not ashamed to be LDS. Not by a long shot.

    I hope you eventually find peace in your life, Personal Failure. I really, really do.

  15. beetlebabee said,

    May 20, 2009 at 4:50 pm

    Personal Failure, attacking religion is a poor excuse for an argument. If you’d like to take up your anti religious rants, take them elsewhere.

  16. Chairm said,

    May 20, 2009 at 5:48 pm

    The funny thing is that “gay marriage” is neither gay nor marriage.

    When it comes to marriage there is no sexual orientation requirement for eligibility nor for ineligibility.

    And, unsurprisingly, when it comes to “gay marriage” there is no such requirement. Heh.

    Like I said, the two guys in the photo looked like buddies with wives at home; or like siblings happy to be billboards for happy marriage.

    What?

    Is there some other coded message?

  17. Scott said,

    May 20, 2009 at 11:32 pm

    So why is it we have marriage? Is it to create family units? Is it to have tax breaks? Is it an an expression of love? Of commitment? Is it to make splitting up more difficult? Is it to bring two people closer to one another?

    Yes.

    It is those things and many more.

    So why the opposition to gay people getting married? You could argue that gay men and women don’t deserve to create family units. You could say they’re not ‘real’ Americans. You could say that their love is perverted. That they are unable to commit. That they’ll split up anyway. Or that it doesn’t take marriage to come closer.

    But that could be argued for every person on this planet.

    The fact is, we gay people love. We serve our country. We pay taxes. We otherwise contribute to society, build families, instill morals and every other honorable pursuit that you claim as your own. You may concentrate on our differences (there being only one… and only anatomy), but there is so much in common, the differences are minuscule.

  18. Anna said,

    May 21, 2009 at 7:55 am

    I brought up temple recommend because I am interested in hearing someone views that is LDS and gay/have same sex attraction and still believes the gospel. It is my experience that those LDS that are committed to the gospel hold temple recommends.

    Anna

  19. Chairm said,

    May 21, 2009 at 10:39 am

    The differences, Scott, are rather more significant to society than all that you just listed.

    1) sex integration, 2) provision for responsible procreation, and 3) these combined as a coherent whole.

    What is the core meaning of SSM? It is not points 1 through 3. What are the definitive legal requirements for the license that people would seek for an all-male or an all-female arrangement?

    For marriage we have the man-woman criterion and the requirement that people consent to all that marriage entails, including the presumption that the husband is the father of the childrne born to his wife during their marriage. This makes the marital relationship a two-sexed sexual relationship — by type — in the law and in the culture. It is a public type of relationship because of this significant core meaning; a meaning that is rejected by those who support SSM.

    The SSM campaign is about redrawing lines and about objecting to arbititrary use of governmental authority.

    Each society draws boundaries around the core meaning of marriage. These are based on societal concerns about sex integration and responsible procreation and the social institution itself. Not all consenting adults are eligible.

    You have emphasized sexual orientation but there is no such requirement — not for eligibility and not for ineligibility. The same is so wherever SSM has been imposed or enacted. No legal requirement based on same-sex sexual attraction, same-sex sexual behavior, or even same-sex romance, love, and so forth.

    But would you have society impose such requirements?

    If not, and minus the core meaning of marriage, on what possible basis do you think that the current boundaries would remain sustainable? Would you redraw the lines in regards to some related people (but not all related people), some previousy married people (but all previously married people), some underaged people (but not all underaged people)?

    In other words, if consenting adults show-up for a license to marry, is that all there is to it? Is not society a party to each marriage and so consent comes from government, on behalf of society?

    Whatever might occur between an all-male or an all-female arrangement is a private matter, surely, and has no societal significance that rises to the level of the societal preference for points 1 to 3.

  20. May 26, 2009 at 3:04 pm

    There is nothing “gay” about marriage.

  21. Scott said,

    May 28, 2009 at 11:17 pm

    All three of the of those points are options in a marriage. They are not required, they are expected. You’re making (very) broad generalizations about what the goals of married people should be. Truth be told, marriage is whatever the couple makes of it. What you consider to be the purpose of marriage is not universal. There is no universal view on matrimony. There doesn’t need to be. Marriage is made for men and women… not the reverse. So allow me the respect and dignity to create my own definition for my own relationship.

  22. beetlebabee said,

    May 28, 2009 at 11:26 pm

    sure, you can make your own definition for your own relationship. I would encourage you to do so. Marriage already has a definition. All the wishing in the world can’t make a prince into a frog or vice versa. The realities of what marriage is intended to be vs. what individuals actually do is immaterial. The question is, what do we aim for and why? I think that was well addressed.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: