Friday, June 20, 2008

Come On Y'all,

This is scary. It is a pre-meditated plan to fight traditional marriage. It is a documented plan for homosexual activists who claim there is no plan to stop traditional marriage. It is written out now. The activist group can no longer say conservatives are lying about them having an agenda. There has been one all along and now it is in print. The thing is when you define something like marriage so broad it is no longer an entity. Marriage ceases to be marriage if you can call anything marriage. And for those who think the next step won't be polygamy, there are polygamist waiting with baited breath to file suits to be recognized and once the definition is changed there is no legal restraint.

You can talk all day long about how two people should be allowed to marry or love whomever they want but you will have NO legal grounds to stop it from including even the basest of relationships that between more than two people and even including animals and humans. Oh yeah that will happen, and it isn't a scare tactic. If you take an argument away from fact and throw emotion on it you stop the argument. Same thing when you start calling the person with whom you disagree names.

There is a pastor in Canada, Rev. Stephen Boissoin, who has had his freedoms restricted by courts of law and can no longer preach or speak or e-mail or write privately or publicly against homosexual's or even preach strongly in favor of traditional marriage as being one man and one woman because by preaching for that it is against homosexual marriage, for the rest of his life. No joke.

"Ten Facts About Counterfeit Marriage
1. Homosexual marriage degrades a time-honored institution

Homosexual marriage is an empty pretense that lacks the fundamental sexual complementariness of male and female. And like all counterfeits, it cheapens and degrades the real thing. The destructive effects may not be immediately apparent, but the cumulative damage is inescapable. The eminent Harvard sociologist, Pitirim Sorokin, analyzed cultures spanning several thousand years on several continents, and found that virtually no society has ceased to regulate sexuality within marriage as traditionally defined, and survived.


2. Homosexual marriage would radically redefine marriage to include virtually any sexual behavior.

Once marriage is no longer confined to a man and a woman, and the sole criterion becomes the presence of "love" and "mutual commitment," it is impossible to exclude virtually any "relationship" between two or more partners of either sex. To those who scoff at concerns that gay marriage could lead to the acceptance of other harmful and widely-rejected sexual behaviors, it should be pointed out that until very recent times the very suggestion that two women or two men could "marry" would have been greeted with scorn. The movement to redefine marriage has already found full expression in what is variously called "polyfidelity" or "polyamory," which seeks to replace traditional marriage with a bewildering array of sexual combinations among various groups of individuals.

3. Homosexual marriage is not a civil rights issue

Defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman would not deny homosexuals the basic civil rights accorded other citizens. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights or in any legislation proceeding from it are homosexuals excluded from the rights enjoyed by all

citizens--including the right to marry. However, no citizen has the unrestricted right to marry whomever they want. A person cannot marry a child, a close blood relative, two or more spouses, or the husband or wife of another person. Such restrictions are based upon the accumulated wisdom not only of Western civilization but also of societies and cultures around the world for millennia.

4. Upholding traditional marriage is not "discrimination"

Discrimination occurs when someone is unjustly denied some benefit or opportunity. But it must first be demonstrated that such persons deserve to be treated equally regarding the point in question. For example, FAA and airline regulations rightly discriminate regarding who is allowed into the cockpit of an airplane. Those who are not trained pilots have no rightful claim to "discrimination" because they are denied the opportunity to fly an airplane. Similarly, the accumulated wisdom of thousands of years of human history, as expressed in virtually all cultures, has defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Homosexual activists conveniently avoid the question of whether homosexual relationships merit being granted equality with marriage. Although not strictly comparable, radically altering the definition of marriage can also pose dangers to society in much the same way as permitting unqualified individuals to fly airplanes.

5. Any comparison with interracial marriage is phony

Laws against interracial marriage sought to add a requirement to marriage that is not intrinsic to the institution of marriage. Allowing a black man to marry a white woman, or vice versa, does not change the fundamental definition of marriage, which requires a man and a woman. Homosexual marriage, on the other hand, is the radical attempt to discard this most basic requirement for marriage. Those who claim that some churches held interracial marriage to be morally wrong fail to point out that such "moral objection" to interracial marriage stemmed from cultural factors rather than historic and widely-accepted biblical teaching.

6. Homosexual marriage would subject children to unstable home environments

Many homosexuals and their sex partners may sincerely believe they can be good parents. But children are not guinea pigs for grand social experiments in redefining marriage, and should not be placed in settings that are unsuitable for raising children.

· Transient relationships: While a high percentage of married couples remain married for up to 20 years or longer, with many remaining wedded for life, the vast majority of homosexual relationships are short-lived and transitory. This has nothing to do with alleged "societal oppression." A study in the Netherlands , a gay-tolerant nation that has legalized homosexual marriage, found the average duration of a homosexual relationship to be one and a half years.

· Serial promiscuity: Studies indicate that while three-quarters or more of married couples remain faithful to each other, homosexual couples typically engage in a shocking degree of promiscuity. The same Dutch study found that "committed" homosexual couples have an average of eight sexual partners (outside of the relationship) per year. Children should not be placed in unstable households with revolving bedroom doors.

7. Homosexual activists have a political agenda: to radically redefine the institution of marriage

Homosexual activists admit that their goal is not simply to make the definition of marriage more "inclusive," but to remake it in their own hedonistic image. Paula Ettelbrick, former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, states, "Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and ... transforming the very fabric of society." Homosexual writer and activist Michelangelo Signorile rejects monogamy in favor of "a relationship in which the partners have sex on the outside often ... and discuss their outside sex with each other, or share sex partners."

8. If victorious, the homosexual agenda will lead to the persecution of those who object on moral or religious grounds

If homosexual marriage becomes the law of the land, then children in public schools will be taught that homosexuality is a normative lifestyle, and that gay households are just another "variant" style of family. Those who object may find themselves on the wrong side of the law. Unbelievable? This Orwellian situation has occurred in Massachusetts , which legalized homosexual marriage in 2004. In April 2005, David Parker, the parent of a six-year-old boy, protested to the Lexington elementary school after his son was taught about homosexual "families" in his kindergarten class.

At a scheduled meeting at the school, when Parker refused to back down from his request that the school honor the Massachusetts parental notification statute, he was arrested for "trespassing," handcuffed, and put in jail overnight. The next morning Parker was led handcuffed into court for his arraignment, and over the next several months endured two subsequent court appearances before the school district backed down and decided to drop all charges against him. In 2007, Parker's lawsuit against the Lexington school officials was dismissed by a federal judge who refused to uphold his civil rights and to enforce the Massachusetts parental notification statute. Parker's shocking story will become commonplace in a society that forces the acceptance of homosexual marriage as normative.

9. Polls consistently show that the majority of Americans reject same-sex marriage

Public opinion remains firmly opposed to the redefinition of marriage. A May 2008 Gallup Poll asked the question: "Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid?" Respondents opposed homosexual marriage by a margin of 56 percent (opposed) to 40 percent (agreeing). Respondents to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll in October 2007 rejected same-sex marriage by the same margins.

10. Support for traditional marriage translates into ballot initiatives and laws around the country
Because of strong public support for traditional marriage, same-sex marriage advocates have attempted to circumvent public opinion by redefining marriage through the courts. Despite some victories, such as in Massachusetts and California where the courts have mandated same-sex marriage, there is a strong national movement to protect traditional marriage. A total of 45 states have instituted protections for traditional marriage either through state constitutional amendments or through laws:

26 states prohibit same-sex marriage in their state constitutions.
19 states currently prohibit same-sex marriage through statute only.
In addition, in 2008-9 several more states will be considering ballot initiatives to protect traditional marriage, including Florida and California . Others, such as Indiana and Pennsylvania , will be voting to institute laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

Timothy J. Dailey is Senior Fellow for Policy at Family Research Council "

Oh yeah and I know I am opening myself up to some hate comments. Let me warn you now, this is a comment moderated blog. I will respect all opinions no matter if I agree or not and will allow comments that disagree as long as there is no name calling and you don't try to blog on your own in my comment space!! We can respectfully disagree as this particular post is not looking at individuals that you may know who are wonderful and wonderful parents, but a group of well financed activists who have other plans for our society.

7 comments:

laurel said...

Amen.

Vivian M said...

I love your last paragraph! Girl, you really should have considered a career in law, you would be the lawyer I would want on my side!

Ellie Monster said...

You know that of all people, I'm all about allowing you to express yourself on your blog and I have the utmost respect that you do so! But, I do have a few things to just mention about this post and they are not meant "at" you... more of a point/counter-point.
1. If children were only "allowed" in the homes of "traditional" families, as a single parent, you would not have been allowed to adopt.

2. Homosexuals are human beings who are looking for love and life partners just like heterosexuals. I know bed hopping, married, heterosexuals, and I know committed, monogomous homosexuals. The door swings both ways.

3. I would hope that IF homosexual unions (offering the legal rights of marriage) were legalized, it would be for the benefit of those who wanted to join their lives and raise children and not open the door for pologamy, which is not the same thing.

JoAnn in NJ said...

Hey Bev,
Way to spark up a quiet Saturday evening!

I completely disagree with this post, but of course, support your right to talk about what you believe in your own space.

I think you take out the word "gay" and replace it with "fat", "Asian" "Senior" or any other minority and you get a completely different reaction.

I am completely puzzled by people's reaction to gay people...
I'm not a liberal...quite the opposite, but I do believe that everyone should have the same rights as I do.

Take care and thank you for respectfully posting my comment!

kris said...

I have to disagree as well and say that it's a pretty weak argument to say that homosexual marriage (any more or less than heterosexual) is going to open the gate to marriage between animals and people or open the gate to polygamy. Deviant sexual behavior does not include love between those of the same sex- it includes anyone (hetero or otherwise) engaging in a psychosexual disorder in which sexual gratification is obtained through highly unusual practices that are harmful or humiliating to others or socially repugnant, such as voyeurism or pedophilia.

I don't think love between a couple, or 2 desiring to commit through marriage, no matter what their sexual preference is- is "repugnant" (or humiliating and harmful to others). Any one person, in any given relationship, as Ellie said, can be bed-hopping and not monogamous/committed.

Plus, I'm pretty certain that no matter how we "feel" about homosexuality- whether we accept it or reject it, it's not really our place to judge. I have no idea if it's "right" or "wrong", but I am certain that we are all entitled to equal human rights.

Yoli said...

I do not agree with you or with the narrow view that is presented here. It is though, your right to say it. Like it is my right to disagree with you. I am sad that you are being so one sided. I never thought of you like that...oh well.

Shaun said...

Hey Bev,
You know I love you girl, but I totally disagree with this post.
If the same logic was applied to you as a Single mom to a Transracially adopted daughter you wouldn't have the family you do. Your family is certainly considered non-traditional and there are a lot of people that disagree with it. Look at the rules that CCAI have implemented. If they would have been applied just a couple of years earlier, Glenys would have missed out on a wonderful mom! How fair would that have been?