I appreciate gay marriage was been covered many, many times on these boards but I have one particular point I’d like to explore, one that I haven’t seen explained.
I have just been watching a BBC report about Christians in Atlanta who are mobilising to convince people to protest and vote against gay marriage,
One woman interviewed said she was concerned about the “gay agenda” and suspected that “they” wanted to destroy the institution of marriage altogether.
What I’d like to ask/discuss is: Is this a common perception among those opposed to gay marriage?
If it is, how is it proposed that homosexuals are going to achieve this?
And why?
From what I understand; and I have just read a small book called Marriage Under Fire by Dobson; the gays want to make marriage mean whatever anyone says they want it to mean, 20 people even, so then it becomes nothing and presto-no more marriage.
Thats what I have read.
Regrettably, vanilla is precisely right – the common perception among many conservative Christians of right wing politics is that the promotion of gay marriage is a subtle attempt to destroy the historical perception of what marriage is, as a part of an ongoing effort by secular humanists, largely though unwittingly inspired by Satan, to destroy Christian institutions and influence.
(Gaah! Now I feel like I need to wash my hands and keyboard with antiseptic soap!)
Also sadly, this fear is driven in part by activists (including some on this board) who advocate just that - the dissolution of marriage as a social institution and its relegation to a religious rite only.
People who feel threatened can come up with truly amazing rhetoric. There is a perception of a threat, and corresponding extremism, on both sides of this issue.
I’m always interested to learn about how marriage is 1) a basic human institution that has existed, an unaltered edifice, for millennia, and 2) a frail flower that could be blown away by the merest puff of equality.
:dubious:
True. But for this idea to have such mass appeal, as it appears to, there must be some proponents who can explain the mechanics of this breakdown that gays want to inflict upon marriage beyond a vague slippery slope argument, mustn’t there? Otherwise those who agree are just stupid.
And again, why would one group of people who want to vow to love just one other person have such a different agenda to another group of people who want exactly the same thing?
So they say marriage is a Christian institution? Did anyone tell, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob this?
Correct me if I’m wrong; but aren’t you one of the people who want Civil Unions separated from marriage?
Not always stupid. Sometimes they’re just more willing to accept what society has repeated to them over and over again for years and years instead of really thinking about the personal implications of it.
Many opponents claim that it’s not exactly the same thing. They say that the difference between a heterosexual relationship and a homosexual relationship is so fundamental that they cannot both be called the same term. To them, the type of the relationship itself, the commitment involved, and all the other societal conventions of “marriage” are not as important as the sexes of the participants.
as a roman catholic, i get some flack for religious fanaticism. i personally believe (and i think other people do too) that marriage is just a word. and that words change meanings. the word marriage is just a human representation of an abstract, heavenly ideal. i have no problem giving homosexuals all the rights married people get. if they want to call it marriage, who cares? although, i must admit that i feel differently when it comes to gay adoptions, but thats another issue.
It’s just meaningless fear-mongering – perpetually undefined, it can mean anything to anyone.
Any longer view of marriage shows that it predates Christianity and has been redefined countless times.
At the risk of invoking Godwin; Other groups of people have historically (and indeed currently) been accused of all sorts of machinations, conspiracies and agendas, as a justification for oppressing, pigeonholing, segregating and persecuting them, when in fact all they (generally) wanted to do was to live their normal lives without unnecessary and unfair outside interference.
Dr. Dobson also says that marriage was instituted by God, as an analogy of the relationship between Christ and His church.
He made woman specifically FOR man, for this reason.
After all, they DO fit together. :dubious:
Dr. Dobson says a lot of things that are pure bull excrement. I’d demand a fact check if ol’ Jimmy-boy said the sky was blue.
Back in 2000, Esprix asked a question that has not yet been answered in this regard: Given what you said, why did God create the prostate neural ganglion?
Good manners restrains me from explaining its relevance to the issue at hand, but you ought to be able to figure it out.
As for “male and female created he them,” that is not exclusively a reference to sexual relations, nor can one reduce human sexuality to reproduction – if one could, many aspects of how humans behave would be vastly different than they are. (E.g., the dirty old man who divorces his 55-year-old wife to pick up a 20-year-old nubile girl would not be reviled but rather celebrated as a man who knows not to “waste his seed” with a no-longer-fertile wife. I don’t think any of us have a very high opinion of him.) Reproduction is undoubtedly an important purpose of human sex, but not the exclusive one.
Eh, nobody ever enacted any of my ideas before, why get worried now?
Besides, how many of us antimonogamists are homosexual? I don’t think it’s a large percentage, and I definitely don’t think people are advocating gay marriage only. So why tie the two together?
Buncha damned polygamists!
Well, Abraham might not technically be a polygamist, but he did have that son, Ishmael, by Hagar and then turned around and drove both of them out into the desert when Sarah finally came through with Isaac. Nice guy.
Because it is a convenient bit of slippery slope rhetoric that is easy to anchor in the shallow minds of those at whom it is targetted. Allow gay marriages and before we know where we are, they’ll want to marry dogs, telephone directories and international boundaries!
No, it doesn’t make sense; it doesn’t need to make sense, it just needs to frighten impressionable people. ooOOOooo change is baaaad, fear change.
I do, I do! Especially dimes and nickels…almost make me swallow my tongue…
The basic argument against gay marriage, along the defense-of-marriage vein, can be summed up as: