Presumably I will have my bitching blog shut down for hate speech so I made it personal. After all, the reality of the "gay lifestyle" (not gays per se) is right in front of me, and in this case it involved breaking the first, 4th, 5th, 6th 7th and 8th commandments so far in the name of "freedom to be what I am". And What would Jesus say? Well, isn't there that part about a millstone?
Even Anne Althouse, a libertarian and long time supporter of gay marriage, notes that the defenders like Jimmy Carter who seem to think Jesus has no problem with the implications comments sarcastically:
You can talk about same-sex marriage. What I find surprising is Carter's idea that Jesus would encourage any love affair if it was honest and sincere and was not damagingto anyone else. That's not limited to marriage or even to lifelong loyal partnership. Carter's got Jesus cheerleading straightforward fornication! What's more honest andsincere than I just want to f*** you?
And that is one problem: In a country where 35 million caretakers care for the young, old or handicapped family members, and where 30 percent of children are raised in poverty, often without fathers, doesn't the government have an interest in strengthening family ties?
and will "gay marriage" do this, or will it merely be a way to force people to be non judgemental and accept any type of sexual acting out, no matter how abnormal?
Confucius, confronted with the warring state chaos, insisted that strengthening the family should come first, and as anyone in Asia could tell you, strengthening the family often means putting your family's welfare in front of your personal wishes, especially for women.
Patriarchal marriage is not limited to a Christian world, you know, no matter what the religion haters say.
And guess what? It worked. Yes, women "lost" rights to be free. But now women lack the right to be supported when they are pregnant, and society encourages women
, and instead of policies that allow children and working mothers, we have the idea warehousing kids with strangers is a good alternative (Middle class moms might prefer "educational" daycare, but my poor patients preferred friends and relatives to baby sit, not day care. Any studies about this?)
And the next step: various forms of poly marriages.
This has a lot of the Christian left and right up in arms, but the reality is that polygamy is not common even in countries where it is practiced, because it makes women miserable and often their misery and bickering make the men miserable too...
Yes, the MSM portray it as a lovefest of young sexy people.
As for polyandry: Except for Tibet, I am not sure it exists in other countries. If it was an option, maybe China, (and India and Korea in the near future) with it's huge woman deficit, should push this as a better idea than single men without connections to families. Since they are not doing so, then maybe it is because China is realistic about such things.
Yes, Marriage is about protecting women so they can raise children, but it is also about proving men with connections to families. Boys become adults when they learn to support families. And it is about caring for the dependent in their extended families.
This was brought up by the Pope in Ecuador.
“The family is the nearest hospital; when a family member is ill, it is in the home that they are cared for as long as possible. The family is the first school for the young, the best home for the elderly. The family constitutes the best ‘social capital’. It cannot be replaced by other institutions. It needs to be helped and strengthened.”as David Warren points out: The MSM didn't cover this part of his speech.
The headline, “Pope says families need a miracle, hints at ‘scandalous’ changes for the church,” gives a fair summary. A journalist with any idea of Bergoglio’s previous remarks on this “evolution” — total opposition to it — could not have written anything so perverse and silly. For in this case, as in all others, the pope was defending the “traditional” family (mommy, daddy, children and so forth) against the modern world:
There are conservative arguments for gay marriage as a way to encourage gays not to be promiscuous (and to allow lesbians the dignity of living in their usually monogamous relationships). In such families, gay marriage would resemble that of traditional marriage. Would Jesus approve? No, no more than he approved of the adulterous woman's activity, but he would probably offer them mercy.
Yet after 50 years of elite propaganda to get rid of the family and traditional marriage because it stands in the way of "freedom", the real problem we face is reconstructing marriage and the family as a real and holy way for people to live.
The dirty little secret is when the Supreme Court insists that gay marriage is about "dignity", they are implying that "dignity" and "Rights" are granted by the state (not God)
but one only has to peruse the latest TwitterHate to notice the result will actually be a way to use the power of the law and pressure private corporations to force people to approve of all sexual activity, and legally to cooperate with activity that they disapprove of for ethical religious reasons.
And that part about "approving" is the real problem: because pious Christians/Muslims/Jews/Confucians know that this is wrong.