The future if "gay marriage" becomes widely accepted - just imagine

[In Training]

Originally Posted by Apologista

Already we see things like wedding cake toppers that you can order with two brides or two grooms. At the library the other day I saw a book on "gay etiquette" that had things like how to word a gay wedding invitation. It also gave advice what to do with those backward members of the family who object to the "marriage."

What if we had a time machine and could go into the future - what would it look like, what would we hear?

Imagine . . .

Parent Jones: "So, Smith, gotten your daughter married off yet, ha ha?"
Parent Smith: "I guess Sally just hasn't met the right person yet . . ."
Jones: "Is she looking for a male or a female?"

and other scenarios like this - how confusing it already is, how confusing could it potentially get?

This whole thing is blown way out of proportion. I don't care about the actions of others. A gay couple marrying does not affect me. Why attack someone for making their own choices? You make your own choices, don't you? Would you want others to make your decisions for you on the premise that they "know what's good for you" and you don't?

Homosexuality is not confusing at all. But some people's (over)reaction to it certainly is. There are other "sins" out there and none of us are perfect. Why can't you just let people have their own lives? I'm sure there are some things in your life that people don't approve of. And as for your little dialogue, that just proves where your mind is regarding gender perceptions. Nobody in this generation asks if you've gotten your daughter married off yet. Daughters are not people to be "married off" like they were in the 1800s when they were thought of as property investments. And why is it your business what type of partner someone else is looking for? I know what preferences of qualities I like in a partner and I'm allowed to have them. Sexuality is not a result of a childish popularity contest. People's sexuality won't change based on what's more "popular" at the time. It's okay to disapprove of homosexuality, but don't go around acting like it will be the end of the world or that it caused 9/11 or that it threatens your sexuality. It doesn't.

[DaddyGirl]

Originally Posted by _L_

I'm more concerned about the future prospect of people being denied jobs or promotions or even services for their stance on gay marriage. Manny Pacquiao, world famous Boxer and practicing Catholic was recently banned from a mall in LA for opposing same-sex marriage, if this is done to such high profile figures, what about the commoner?

That's not quite what happened--his banning was not for his views on same sex marriage.

It was reported that he said in an interview that homosexuals in general "should be put to death" and "deserve death"...and that hateful statement got him banned from the mall where he was to do an interview a few days later.

“The Grove is a gathering place for all Angelenos and not a place for intolerance,” the VP of corporate affairs said.

The boxer said later his comments were taken out of context, and he apologized to the gay community.
He wasn't banned for his stance on same-sex marriage...but for the hateful words he had reportedly, erroneously said.

[Havard]

Originally Posted by DaddyGirl

That's not quite what happened--his banning was not for his views on same sex marriage.

It was reported that he said in an interview that homosexuals in general "should be put to death" and "deserve death"...and that hateful statement got him banned from the mall where he was to do an interview a few days later.

“The Grove is a gathering place for all Angelenos and not a place for intolerance,” the VP of corporate affairs said.

The boxer said later his comments were taken out of context, and he apologized to the gay community.
He wasn't banned for his stance on same-sex marriage...but for the hateful words he had reportedly, erroneously said.

To make it clear, the reports that Pacquaio advocated violence toward gays were what were erroneous. Put even more clearly, Manny Pacquiao never made any such statements.

It was implied by the very poor wording of the author of an article in the National Conservative Examiner.

[EasterJoy]

Originally Posted by In Training

This whole thing is blown way out of proportion. I don't care about the actions of others. A gay couple marrying does not affect me. Why attack someone for making their own choices? You make your own choices, don't you? Would you want others to make your decisions for you on the premise that they "know what's good for you" and you don't?

Homosexuality is not confusing at all. But some people's (over)reaction to it certainly is. There are other "sins" out there and none of us are perfect. Why can't you just let people have their own lives? I'm sure there are some things in your life that people don't approve of..... It's okay to disapprove of homosexuality, but don't go around acting like it will be the end of the world or that it caused 9/11 or that it threatens your sexuality. It doesn't.

Marriage as a civil institution is not society tolerating something, but society encouraging something. Civil unions, if available to all adults who cannot marry, can be seen as a way for society to encourage single adults to take care of each other. Fair enough, except that homosexual rights advocates do not want civil unions to be open to people (such as siblings) whose sexual union they would deem taboo. In other words, this is all about gaining positive societal approval of lives built around homosexual acts, not simple tolerance of the privacy of co-habitating adults.

Do you see the hypocrisy built into this "civil rights movement"? The push for gay marriage is not about asking people to mind their own business. It is about demanding approval for sexual relationships that at the most tolerant would be no one's business and in most societies in history have been something forbidden even outside the monotheistic religions. Homosexuality has been tolerated at times, but to equate it with marriage has been unusual, short-lived, and, many of believe, misguided and out of touch with society's interest in biological reality.

Let us not fool ourselves that families headed by homosexual couples are merely some boon of homes being made available for orphans. Homosexual "marriage" will encourage surrogate parenthood, in vitro fertilization, and other forms of extra-marital conception, which is an objective evil by which adults plan to deprive a child of one of his or her own biological parents from birth. That falls a bit outside of "it doesn't hurt me, it is none of my business." Protecting children is our business. That is what societies do.

[DaddyGirl]

Originally Posted by Havard

To make it clear, the reports that Pacquaio advocated violence toward gays were what were erroneous. Put even more clearly, Manny Pacquiao never made any such statements.
It was implied by the very poor wording of the author of an article in the National Conservative Examiner.

Correct.
The news reporter quoted Manny's views, and then the writer him/herself quoted Leviticus..."they shall surely be put to death" and it spread that the boxer himself had said those words...and that's what caused it all.

[In Training]

Originally Posted by EasterJoy

Marriage as a civil institution is not society tolerating something, but society encouraging something. Civil unions, if available to all adults who cannot marry, can be seen as a way for society to encourage single adults to take care of each other. Fair enough, except that homosexual rights advocates do not want civil unions to be open to people (such as siblings) whose sexual union they would deem taboo. In other words, this is all about gaining positive societal approval of lives built around homosexual acts, not simple tolerance of the privacy of co-habitating adults.

Do you see the hypocrisy built into this "civil rights movement"? The push for gay marriage is not about asking people to mind their own business. It is about demanding approval for sexual relationships that at the most tolerant would be no one's business and in most societies in history have been something forbidden even outside the monotheistic religions. Homosexuality has been tolerated at times, but to equate it with marriage has been unusual, short-lived, and, many of believe, misguided and out of touch with society's interest in biological reality.

Let us not fool ourselves that families headed by homosexual couples are merely some boon of homes being made available for orphans. Homosexual "marriage" will encourage surrogate parenthood, in vitro fertilization, and other forms of extra-marital conception, which is an objective evil by which adults plan to deprive a child of one of his or her own biological parents from birth. That falls a bit outside of "it doesn't hurt me, it is none of my business." Protecting children is our business. That is what societies do.

There's nothing wrong with adopting children whose parents have willfully given them up to have a better life, or worse, have abandoned them. Gay people do not force others to give up their children - if there is no one willing to give them children, then they will not get any, end of story. If I adopt a kid I'd consider it a gift from God that two parties looking for a family ended up finding each other and forming a family. I know who loves me and cares for me and I don't need to be put through DNA tests to know who my family is.

I do not think that giving one group the civil rights that we have takes any away from us. We still have the right to marry and that won't change. But maybe according to you it will, since you seem to be under the impression that homosexuality is a direct attack on heterosexuality. Paranoid much?

Like I said, it's okay to disapprove of homosexual unions, but come out and admit it. In other words, don't pretend you're trying to protect children who are apparently being ripped away from their biological parents and forced into the care of evil bloodsuckers. Just say you disapprove of homosexuality because the Bible disapproves. End of story.

Your name should not be Easter Joy - I see no Joy in your supposedly Christian way.

[EasterJoy]

Originally Posted by In Training

There's nothing wrong with adopting children whose parents have willfully given them up to have a better life, or worse, have abandoned them. Gay people do not force others to give up their children - if there is no one willing to give them children, then they will not get any, end of story. If I adopt a kid I'd consider it a gift from God that two parties looking for a family ended up finding each other and forming a family. I know who loves me and cares for me and I don't need to be put through DNA tests to know who my family is.

I do not think that giving one group the civil rights that we have takes any away from us. We still have the right to marry and that won't change. But maybe according to you it will, since you seem to be under the impression that homosexuality is a direct attack on heterosexuality. Paranoid much?

Like I said, it's okay to disapprove of homosexual unions, but come out and admit it. In other words, don't pretend you're trying to protect children who are apparently being ripped away from their biological parents and forced into the care of evil bloodsuckers. Just say you disapprove of homosexuality because the Bible disapproves. End of story.

Your name should not be Easter Joy - I see no Joy in your supposedly Christian way.

Did Elton John adopt an orphan? No. Did Neil Patrick Harris adopt an orphan? No. Were their children, by the decision of parents, not fate, taken away from their mothers? Yes.

I dont' see why this is paranoid. It is what is happening. Yet I am made out to be some kind of an oppressor because I think it is objectively wrong. And no, you do not think it is OK to make the plain observation that heterosexuality and homosexuality are not the same thing, do not have the same results, and therefore homosexuality cannot "by right" claim to be equivalent. You think I lack joy because I won't pretend that two men or two women can produce a child or a that a man can't become a woman by the use of surgery and hormones or whatever.

The "right" for homosexuals to pretend that homosexuality and heterosexuality are the same thing and that homosexual and heterosexual unions lead to the same results is an invention based on obvious lies. Lies that make someone feel better about themselves and how they are oriented, but lies all the same. If it makes me joyless that I won't lie to make someone else feel good, well, so be it.

If it makes me less a Christian, then there were no Christians, except in the last 40 years. Go ahead and think that, if you like. If your theology is that whatever makes you feel good is true, go for it. I can't stop you.

[In Training]

Originally Posted by EasterJoy

Did Elton John adopt an orphan? No. Did Neil Patrick Harris adopt an orphan? No. Were their children, by the decision of parents, not fate, taken away from their mothers? Yes.

I dont' see why this is paranoid. It is what is happening. Yet I am made out to be some kind of an oppressor because I think it is objectively wrong. And no, you do not think it is OK to make the plain observation that heterosexuality and homosexuality are not the same thing, do not have the same results, and therefore homosexuality cannot "by right" claim to be equivalent. You think I lack joy because I won't pretend that two men or two women can produce a child or a that a man can't become a woman by the use of surgery and hormones or whatever.

The "right" for homosexuals to pretend that homosexuality and heterosexuality are the same thing and that homosexual and heterosexual unions lead to the same results is an invention based on obvious lies. Lies that make someone feel better about themselves and how they are oriented, but lies all the same. If it makes me joyless that I won't lie to make someone else feel good, well, so be it.

If it makes me less a Christian, then there were no Christians, except in the last 40 years. Go ahead and think that, if you like. If your theology is that whatever makes you feel good is true, go for it. I can't stop you.

I never said "whatever makes you feel good is true." Contrarily, learning how to be a Christian has been one of the most challenging things in my life. But thank you for admitting that you can't stop me. No, you can't stop me and you can't control me, and you have no right to, just as I have no right to control others.

Relationships are about so much more than children. Don't objectify someone's love for another based on their reproductive abilities. And again, no, people who adopt (including straight couples) do not steal children from birth mothers. Like I said, if people didn't willfully give children up, or lose them in an abuse/neglect case, then there would be no children to adopt. Don't act like every mother is a good mother who takes excellent care of her child. Many parents are abusive, even if they are biological, and the child can have a better family and a better childhood somewhere else. You may view it as "lies" but not everyone feels the way you do. No one's asking you to make anyone else feel good. There's no shame in disagreeing with homosexuality, but you're demonizing homosexuals and adoptive parents in a scary, violent way.

I maintain my argument but apologize for the way it came out before. Wasn't very respectful.

[EasterJoy]

Originally Posted by In Training

I never said "whatever makes you feel good is true." Contrarily, learning how to be a Christian has been one of the most challenging things in my life. But thank you for admitting that you can't stop me. No, you can't stop me and you can't control me, and you have no right to, just as I have no right to control others.

Relationships are about so much more than children. Don't objectify someone's love for another based on their reproductive abilities. And again, no, people who adopt (including straight couples) do not steal children from birth mothers. Like I said, if people didn't willfully give children up, or lose them in an abuse/neglect case, then there would be no children to adopt. Don't act like every mother is a good mother who takes excellent care of her child. Many parents are abusive, even if they are biological, and the child can have a better family and a better childhood somewhere else. You may view it as "lies" but not everyone feels the way you do. No one's asking you to make anyone else feel good. There's no shame in disagreeing with homosexuality, but you're demonizing homosexuals and adoptive parents in a scary, violent way.

I maintain my argument but apologize for the way it came out before. Wasn't very respectful.

Did I say birth mothers were not complicit? No, I did not. The child is not with its mother, and its parents planned that, and that's all I said. It is only the truth.

I'm not demonizing anybody. Rather, I'm being demonized by saying that no, this thing and that thing, held to be different for thousands of years and across the vast majority of civilizations and societies, are not the same thing. They are indeed different things, and it is no violation of anyone's rights to say so. Yet if I say that a homosexual union is different than a heterosexual union, all of a sudden I'm making homosexuals out to be demons.

When did I say every biological mother takes excellent care of her child? I never did. I said only that it is in fact the child's mother. Do you have any guarantee that homosexuals will all be excellent parents? Of course you don't. Yet I can guarantee that children are being conceived with the plan that the child's two parents will not be raising him or her. Do heterosexuals do this? Yes, and I think that is wrong, too. You can't accuse the Catholic Church of being inconsistent on that one!

[gardenswithkids]

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/an-...age-supporters

I thought some of you following this thread would be interested in this LifeSite News article. It points out the likely increase of the exploitation of poor women through "reproductive tourism" to underdeveloped countries as gay men desiring genetic offspring may turn to surrogacy for wombs.

There are many "unknown--unknowns" about this social experiements. I suspect that similarly to the previous social experiment on marriage known as "no fault divorce"----women and children will primarily be the ones who lose.

[In Training]

Ugh.

I can't even think of any prayers to go here.

[In Training]

Sometimes I'm reminded that I'm a better Christian than I think I am.

Not to sound too much like my dad, but I think you're both right in different ways.

[Crescentinus]

Originally Posted by EasterJoy

Her tongue is in her cheek, sir. She thinks this something to joke about.

Not a good thing to joke about. It shows one of the darker sides of homosexism, whether she intended to or not.

[Apologista]

Well, I intended this thread to be thought provoking and it was. I know the "married off" conversation really is anachronistic. It was meant as an intellectual exercise. The idea of taking an imaginative projection into the future about these proposed social changes came to me in kind of a cluster of thoughts of which that was just a part. It was hard to convey precisely the thoughts I was having without that admittedly hokey hypothetical bit. It does get people thinking, though, doesn't it?

[Elixir]

Originally Posted by Kouyate42

European countries with open, relaxed sexual attitudes and education, along with liberal policies in law, often have better standards of living and much more equality than even the US.

For now perhaps. Until of course their abortive and contraceptive culture leads to a small population unable to maintain any standard of living.