NY Times Exposes the "Gay Marriage" Myth ... and no one seems surprised


#1

NY Times Exposes the “Gay Marriage” Myth

              **... and no one seems surprised**




                                                                   **NY Times Exposes the "Gay Marriage" Myth **

              **... and no one seems surprised**

                       
                  

                 by Tom  Hoopes                   *Thursday, February 11, 2010 6:20 PM Comments [(97)]("http://www.ncregister.com/blog/ny_times_exposes_the_gay_marriage_myth/#blogComments")*                                                                                                      I found it ironic that *The New York Times* blew the lid off of homosexual “marriage” just when I was talking about it with my Christianity in Mass Media class.

You hadn’t heard that The New York Times utterly destroyed the homosexual marriage argument and left it in fragments on the ground? They did — while pretending they weren’t. “Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret,” is the Jan. 29 story by Scott James.
Here’s how it begins:
“When Rio and Ray married in 2008, the Bay Area women omitted two words from their wedding vows: fidelity and monogamy.”
The story said:
“A study to be released next month is offering a rare glimpse inside gay relationships and reveals that monogamy is not a central feature for many.” The report offers five sentences of rationalization for every sentence of factoid. But the gist remains: Those who argue for heterosexual marriage were right all the time. Homosexual “marriages” aren’t really marriages in the way we define them.
The article even says that homosexual marriage may end marriage altogether, though it doesn’t put it quite that way: “Some experts say boundary-challenging gay relationships represent an evolution in marriage — one that might point the way for the survival of the institution.”

more…


#2

Heterosexual married people are not always monogamous, either, as is well known. I even saw a TV show describing one such arrangement.

OTOH, I know many same-sex couples who ARE monogamous.


#3

wftv.com/news/9275560/detail.html

The above is about STD in a retirement community, The Villages, in FL. Thanks to Viagra and no fear of pregnancy, STDs happen to the Early Bird crowd. A major happening is genital herpes which also appear on the tongue. Google that subject and see the photos. Whether gay or straight, it would, I would hope, deter all from recreational sex. Should put those posters up in high schools.


#4

Amazing how fast things are changing. It appears that within my own lifetime, faithful catholics will be as unusual and puzzling to the general public as the Amish are today. How can so many buy such a lie so fast?


#5

Remember, it’s not fair to sterotype all gay marriages. I also know of several gay couples who are very faithful to one another.


#6

Wow.


#7

Except the purpose of the article is to try and set the stage for further so called “innovation” in marraige. The suggestion the author makes is that we all need to dispense with fidelity and have so called “open marriages”. And people wonder why good Christians so forcefully oppose gay marriage and so many other so called innovations.


#8

I don’t believe gays need to be married. I think they can through other legal means to insure through wills that their property will go to whomever. They can give power of attorney to whomever they wish. They can appoint whomever to have access to them in a hospital etc.

I know of gays who are “married” and gays who wish all of this would go away. The latter don’t care to be married nor do they believe it necessary to draw attention to themselves.

It is a lifestyle that most straights don’t fully understand.

A woman and I were having a conversation and she confessed she had three abortions in her life. Why? She thought it was okay because the government said it was okay otherwise why would it support Planned Parenthood etc.

I can see the same thing happening with gays. Can’t be a bad lifestyle if the government allows marriages? I can see kids being easily manipulated.


#9

*Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil, who change darkness into light, and light into darkness, who change bitter into sweet, and sweet into bitter! * isaiah 5:20

but i wonder if we Christians have no one to blame but ourselves? how can faithful, heterosexual, marriage be deemed such a failure on every facet? easy. let a few generations of Christians fail at it on every facet.

if Christians lived marriage the way God authored it, i.e., covenental, faithful, and fruitful, the turpitude of open gay unions would be apparent to most. instead, it’s accepted by most (not merely tolerated) and celebrated by many.


#10

While we shouldn’t in any way allow them to engage in such lifestyles, I think the reason why many oppose these measures (even though they essentially do the same thing as a civil marriage) is that it can be expensive to get all of this done…they see how much easier it is to get these things done with civil marriage since that takes care of all that rather quickly. They feel that legal marriage removes a lot of these hassles. I guess some also really want the term “marriage” attached to their union because of the social approval the term carries.

A woman and I were having a conversation and she confessed she had three abortions in her life. Why? She thought it was okay because the government said it was okay otherwise why would it support Planned Parenthood etc.

I can see the same thing happening with gays. Can’t be a bad lifestyle if the government allows marriages? I can see kids being easily manipulated.

I sometimes wonder how many in the gay community don’t truly struggle with homosexual attractions but engage in this lifestyle because they, unfortunately, were led to believe that they were gay based on previous confusion, emotional issues, etc.


#11

To Lotus Cars: Anyone can write a will and have two witnesses sign it. A POA would take a lawyer but ditto for a hetrosexual married couple. The POA and/or a Living Will would include naming the person who is to address medical needs if and when the author is no longer capable of handling his/her affairs.

There was a show on the other night about a young man who had a sex change and is now a woman. Oddly enough, "she" dates women. So now she who was once a he is now a lesbian. Boggles the mind. But "she" still carries an x and y chromosone. There has to be something else in the DNA that makes a person homosexual, transgender....whatever.


#12

As for Powers of Attorney, especially when one partner is in the hospital…it isn’t neccessarily enough. I’ve heard nightmare stories from heterosexual married couples who’ve gone through the wringer at the instigation of the Family of Origin of one of them. If the family of origin is determined enough they can make things incredibly difficult.


#13

Despite anectdotal evidence of this couple or that couple, sin corrupts. The more ingrained and accepted the sin, the more likely that corruption. This can take the form of infidelity or promiscuity and applies to heterosexual or homosexual sin. The difference is that homosexual sin is always gravely disordered, where as the marriage bed is blessed by God.


#14

[quote="jazzbaby1, post:12, topic:186998"]
As for Powers of Attorney, especially when one partner is in the hospital...it isn't neccessarily enough. I've heard nightmare stories from heterosexual married couples who've gone through the wringer at the instigation of the Family of Origin of one of them. If the family of origin is determined enough they can make things incredibly difficult.

[/quote]

Interesting. On what did the family of orgin base its argument?


#15

[quote="bpbasilphx, post:2, topic:186998"]
Heterosexual married people are not always monogamous, either, as is well known. I even saw a TV show describing one such arrangement.

[/quote]

This response is irrelevent. The big difference in spite of the infidelity of heterosexuals is that the vast majority of these couples decide to include fidelity as part of their wedding vows in marriage, whereas homosexuals in the vast majority of cases do not. This definitely reflects the homosexual community's understanding of the marriage precedent as being much more open-ended, which is, of course, drastically different than heterosexual couples' understanding of it no matter much heterosexual couples fail to practice what they preach. So the phenomenon of infidelity, no matter how common among heterosexuals, should not be a precedent for deciding what our rule-governed principles in marriage should be.


#16

The core issue is that God is losing focus in our culture. The fact of the matter is, it’s not true Christian marriages that are failing so miserably… It’s these post sexual revolution, “sexually empowered” i.e. selfish marriages that are failing. God isn’t the center of the family anymore, rather people make their sexuality the center of their marriage, or their “looks” or convinence or whatever else. Such arrangments are always doomed to failure.

What we really need to be doing is following Archbishop Jose Gomez’s advice:
catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=35432

We the layity need to be out there witnessing the faith.


#17

The fact of the matter is, it’s not true Christian marriages that are failing so miserably… It’s these post sexual revolution, “sexually empowered” i.e. selfish marriages that are failing.

i disagree the sexual revolution is the chicken and the gay marriage fiasco is the egg. in fact, decades before the overt depravity of the sexual revolution, and for the first time ever, Christian churches were allowing married couples to use contraceptives, thus redefining marriage in powerful, but private ways. (Lambeth 1930)

After contraceptives, came the snowballing divorce rates coinciding with the Love American Style sexual revolution debacle. within 10 years (1976) the NY and San Francisco disco scenes were really just huge parties where gays outed themselves.

fast forward 30 years and gay “marriage” rather gay “open marriage” is being lauded as the relationship framework with the brightest future.

Christians, who were entrusted with God’s revelation of the mystery of marriage, dismantled marriage. that was the beginning of the treacherously slippery slope.

the only way Christians will reclaim marriage for Christ, is for us to live marriage for Christ-- according to His definition, not according to our own personal spin.


#18

I’m confused, you said you disagree but what you posted is actually in complete and total agreement with my position :confused:


#19

it’s not true Christian marriages that are failing so miserably… It’s these post sexual revolution, “sexually empowered” i.e. selfish marriages that are failing.

i’m confused too. i guess i misread this…??? if so, sorry. but i read you as positing Christian marriages have done OK. it was to that (perhaps mistaken) interpretation i responded, describing how Christian marriages DID fail miserably in the 20th century.


#20

I’d like to share an except from the article ‘Do Gay Men Have To Be Promiscuous?’ by well-known gay activist, Bill Weintraub, that openly admits that the gay community has had an unhealthy problem with promiscuity for years.

'But, starting in 1945, a series of revolts shook the established order: anti-colonialism; the civil rights, women’s, and anti-war movements; the student uprising; and the counter-culture. These movements questioned every aspect of the repressive past, and provided both the ideological underpinnings for, and, in some cases, the actual leaders of, the modern LGBT community.

And so Gay Lib and the gay rights movement which emerged in the 1970s were deeply distrustful of authority.

In particular, gay men and lesbians had come to hate, with good reason, those who argued for any restrictions on sexual freedom.

And because medicine itself had been used against us, gays were suspicious of establishment doctors as well.

So instead of following the traditional, hetero, monogamous model, gay men invented a new one, it which it was both our right and our duty to have sex with as many of our fellows as possible.

An idea that was heartily endorsed by businesspeople who saw in Gay Liberation the chance to make money by opening bath-houses and backroom bars, and by gay male doctors who believed there was no such thing as an untreatable STD.

And when AIDS appeared, most gay men felt and feared that to surrender our promiscuity would be to surrender to the same forces that had attempted to destroy us for literally hundreds of years.

And so, defiantly, promiscuity became even more firmly entrenched in gay male culture.

That doesn’t mean that my generation of gay men invented promiscuity. But it does mean that we formulated an ideology of promiscuity and made it core to our culture.’

The author, Mr. Weintraub, has been crusading on behalf of safer sex and monogamy within the gay community for over three decades. His partner died of AIDS in 1995.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.