August 20, 2014

Advertise with Stand Firm

May 31, 2012


One Woman’s Evolution Against Gay Marriage

“I Must Stand” Stage: It is worth noting that even then, I still knew same-sex couples whom I considered friendly acquaintances. They respected my faith and my family, and they knew where I stood; there was trust. However, the hostility and tyrannical behavior of the “gay rights” activists was remarkably disturbing. Not only do they want to silence anyone who doesn’t approve, they want to harm them too. I grew resentful until I realized that anger wasn’t helpful, so I grew attentive and dedicated. I saw the slow creep of social change they pushed for – to make marriage meaningless – and I saw that it was not healthy for society, not good for the future of our children because it isn’t about the children. I saw the lies that a Godless society tells young people in greater clarity than ever before, and I saw how that message is destructive. Then I posted my frustration, and hell broke loose. I realized that I owe it to my children to defend the truth without compromise in my country and my world. Even more, I owe it to God who gave me those children.

Read it all here.

Hat tip:  Reformed Wanderer


Share this story:


Recent Related Posts

Comments

Facebook comments are closed.

3 comments

Interesting article, as is the discussion among the commenters following it. I also read this woman’s life history in the “About” section of her blog. Wow! What a story! And how brave she is to share it.

[1] Posted by Nellie on 6-1-2012 at 07:57 AM · [top]

The comments are very interesting.  The gay hate reflected in many comments of those who disagree with their sexual behavior is shrill, vicious and persistent.

It seems to me that the gay argument revolves around special pleading:  “Expand marriage for us.”  Once you remove the fact that traditional marriage involves a biological union of two sexes the purpose of which is procreation; that is the sexes are designed to procreate (whether they do or not, can or not) then there is no purpose at all for marriage.  You can come up with all sorts of subsidiary rationales, but they equally apply to any number and combination of people (or things I suppose) that you can think of.

And the state does have a fundamental interest in children if simply for the reason that if there are no children the society dies out.  Look at the Shaker communities.

I would just add that this is recognized in the case which gays like to mis-cite: Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).  In that case the Supreme Court struck down Virginia’s law against inter-racial marriage.  Loving said:

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. [HN5] The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.  [HN6]
Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942).See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law.

But the Court’s quote from Skinner is incomplete.  Skinner involved forced sterilization.  What Skinner actually said was:

[*541] But the instant legislation runs afoul of the equal protection clause, though we give Oklahoma that large deference which the rule of the foregoing cases requires. We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. [HN5] Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, far-reaching and devastating effects. In evil or reckless hands it can cause races or types which are inimical to the dominant group to wither and disappear.

So marriage is “fundamental to our very existence” because it is intimately bound up with procreation and “the very existence and survival of the race”.  That is the preservation of the species.

Whatever else it may do homosexual sex can never lead to procreation.  It cannot do so by nature and design.  Non-reproduction is an expected and natural result.  Conversely reproduction is an expected and natural result of heterosexual sex.  One need only notice the hysterical leftist reactions to both abortion and birth control which they deem critical to reverse the natural proclivity of heterosexual sex to produce children.  Indeed the failure of couples to produce children after trying is considered a disorder.

So if reproduction is eliminated from the marriage equation what is the new definition?  Given the homosexual arguments to expand marriage to them, what arguments are left to limit marriage only two?  To only homosexuals and heterosexuals? If bisexuality is an orientation, and they seem to say that it is, why would a bisexual triad be excluded from marriage; except for the totally arbitrary number of two? Why only this number and these two groups?  Why not any number and combination that people can think of.

Why not two brothers or two sisters?  They are two, they are homosexual and they love each other.  Where under a definition of “two who love each other” are they excluded?  How about brother and sister?  Ah, the danger of inbreeding and birth defects you say.  Have you not heard of birth control and abortion, both of which are freely available, notwithstanding the Catholic Churches refusal to pay for them?  So where is the limit and what possible interest does the state have?

If the state is uninterested in the ability of a unit to reproduce why does the state care what units are formed?  And if the state has no interest in what personal units are formed can it discriminate against un-married units or singles that do procreate?  Why should non-reproductive units get standing and benefits solely because of their sterile union that reproductive non-married units don’t get?  And if the state confers equal standing and benefits to both singles and marrieds why should the state recognize marriage at all?

In short I believe that homosexual marriage does not expand marriage, the arguments used to get there, unless limited solely on the basis of special pleading to gain benefits only for themselves, end marriage for all.  They destroy the fundamental basis for modern civilization and require a massive re-structuring of society away from the fundamental building block of the nuclear family, the end results we can’t even imagine.

[2] Posted by Br. Michael on 6-1-2012 at 08:18 AM · [top]

Man and woman were DESIGNED to be together.  Man/man, woman/woman were not.  Pretty simple stuff.

[3] Posted by B. Hunter on 6-13-2012 at 02:28 PM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.