Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Gay legitmate argument who's really a threat to marriage.

It's not often when gay marriage advocates make an argument that I agree with, but a male homosexual made an argument about what is really threatening marriage in this country and I have to say he's right. It was a letter read on the Dr. Laura show which my wife and I (well, the wife was taking a nap, so just I) were listening to while doing an errant to get some documentation on proving our legitimacy of our marriage.

At first, it's the same ole whine and cry about how it's not fair that he and his partner can't marry, how committed they've been and made commitments to each other and God but still can't get the same legal protections. Frankly, I could care less what gay people do in the privacy of their own homes. It's really none of my business and it's between them and God. Marriage, however, was a covenant that was designed to protect family units, mainly the children, to provide security and protection for the children that should be created from the results of the marriage. I say was because recently it's becoming something else altogether. So homosexuals wanting those benefits is an oxymoron since they can't procreate by nature's design. Now for rights to inheritance, insurance, or should they adopt there are laws in regards about those relationships and those are legitimate arguments and should be addressed as such which many have with domestic partnerships. Just that marriage is about the CHILDREN created, not the couples. So if they want the partnership benefits, so be it. Just don't ask for the benefits as if they were having their own children. That's what should separate marriage from domestic partnerships.

With that said, the argument this letter writer wrote that should stick out to those of that are heterosexuals is that they're denied marriage, while most heterosexuals now shack up, something that he and his partner are accused of, by choice while denying themselves what they desire to have by choice. In essence, they respect the scarcity of marriage better than heterosexuals do. I completely agree with him. Heterosexuals, especially those populated by the liberal notion that anything that feels good you are entitled to act upon and having sex with any Tom, Dick, and Harry are one of those feel good acts. This flys in the face of thousands of years of good sense that relations in a committed relationship protected by the contracts of marriage was the best recourse in human health and the health of society as to keep it from becoming extinct. Now who are the ones that mock it the most. Though the gay mafia does mock it and want to degrade marriage by down playing that their acts are just as normal and acceptable to nature and God as heteros, it's minor in numbers compared to heteros disdain.

First, heterosexuals have the option to protect, treasure and guard their sexual pleasure for their soul mate and life long partner. Though the numbers shows it to be no different for straight or gay, the shacking up (I'm going by the rate of how many gays as well as heteros choose not to make a life long commitment) shows a complete disdain for marriage and its protections. To shack up is to say marriage it archaic, stupid, meaningless and obsolete. I can have my cake and eat it too. Well, since 88 to 97% of humans are hetero, if we're going to thumb our noses at it, the consequences will be far more severe than if only 12 to 3% are doing so.

The other is our horrid divorce rate. There's no statistics on the rate the gay commitments break up. We don't keep records because there are no divorces in the gay community. However, since most heterosexuals aren't bothering to get married anyways now is bad enough. Add that on any given year, the number that get divorce is half that get married, this shows how those of us that do get married don't even even take the vows seriously. I'll give those that have given their vows to God and their partners credit and make their stance for having it legitimized. They put us heteros to shame. And if anyone tries to make divorce harder or make counseling or education about marriage being a life long commitment and one should date wisely and refrain from premarital sex being given so causally which make one use poor judgement, the feminazi's (90% of which are male hating lesbians) go hog wild. Everyone should be able to make their own decision and be entitled to their sexuality, according to them, including 14 year olds as it was in one case. Well, this is the price and it sure isn't pretty. When you see the sexualiztion of Miley Cirus, the 48 hour marriage of Britney Spears, Madonna or the Pitts with their Nanny care parenting, they're doing far more damage to spread the disdain of marriage than the homosexuals, who in a sense, get what marriage is all about (regarding the adults): lifetime commitments.

The gist of this man's argument is that straight people are doing far more damage to the destruction of marriage than homosexuals are. Though the gay movement epitomizes much that's wrong with marriage, they're not the ones that are allowing it to break apart. They not the ones that are making the biggest mockery. They're not the ones with the numbers to make it fail. After all, how can they make a mockery and instill the disdain of the marriage contract when they can't even get married in the first place. It's a major slap in the face to those of us that can and we should accept it as well deserved. To do otherwise is proving their argument.

2 comments:

Euripides said...

Interesting take on same sex marriage. This is the same argument that liberals use all the time: "We're not as bad as...." Obama blames Bush. Pelosi blames Nazi Republicans. Homosexuals blame heterosexuals.

The argument that homosexual couples are more dedicated than heterosexual couples is a red herring argument that denies the fundamental institution of marriage as a state-recognized union between a man and a woman in order to establish responsible procreation.

In the same sex marriage argument, we tend to lose the idea that marriage isn't about the parents, but about the children. That's the real reason that living together and high divorce rates damage marriage - they make marriage a selfish desire between to people and not an unselfish expression of a desire to raise the next generation of children.

By the way, the argument that couples who get married who don't or can't have children is another red herring, thrown out there by gay activists to confuse the real issue - the continuation of the next generation of children.

madmath1 said...

Yes, this man was trying to state that heterosexuals are a threat while homosexuals aren't because they're more committed while straights aren't, but it misses the whole point. Heterosexuals do a fair share of damage because feminazism have made all about the selfish desires of the woman so the real reason, the protection of the children created from the covenant. You never hear about protection of children from the gay rights because it's the same red herring. It's all about money and benefits, no more, no less. If they got the benefits . . . oh wait, they do in the form of domestic partnership so what reason is there left? Only two. Either to destroy the institution all together by defining it something it really isn't, or to legitimized their lifestyle as being just as "normal" or "natural" as heterosexuals and that's the first point is what I got from the writers letter about how Heterosexuals are making a big enough mockery, which in this case, he's right.