Gay Marriage and the Curse of Rumpelstiltskin

[American_Jihad]

Gay Marriage and the Curse of Rumpelstiltskin

11/1/12
By Robert Oscar Lopez


This Election Day, voters in Maine, Maryland, Washington, and Minnesota will be asked to cast their ballots on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Now is a good time to discuss this issue beyond the squeaky-clean case for gay marriage that has been marketed to well-intended, and in some cases gullible, straight allies. First, let's dispense with the maudlin myths and reductive propaganda.

Same-sex marriage will do nothing to address the five real-life crises facing people with same-sex attractions, many of whom do not end up in lifelong couplings: depression, eating disorders, suicide, sexually transmitted diseases, and addictions.

While bullies, biblical verses, Republicans, and chicken sandwich impresarios may cause some hurt feelings, the five aforementioned crises are overwhelmingly the result of the way gays treat one another. Straight people do gays no favors by feeling guilty and then blindly endorsing the demands of gay activists, who are largely responsible for the currents of gay culture and therefore the state of gay people's lives.

By convincing a large part of the country that people have no choice but to act upon biological instincts -- going as far as barring psychotherapists from counseling patients to resist same-sex urges -- post-Stonewall activists have created an alternate social world.

In this alternate world, people are subservient to Freud's pleasure principle and incapable of rising above their id to attain higher transcendentals such as the one, the good, and the true (where is Aquinas when you need him?).

---

Read more: Articles: Gay Marriage and the Curse of Rumpelstiltskin

 

[Noomi]

I just hope the people in those States do the right thing and don't take away peoples rights.

 

[editec]

What a truly insane load of armchair psychiatry.

Is anyone calling for an end to heterosexual marriage because strights suffer from depressed eating disorders, suicide, sexually transmitted diseases, and addictions?

Of course not.

Telling yourself that these are gay specific problems that only gays cause for other gays is kinda...oh what's the word? Oh yeah, I remember...

nuts!​

 

[rightwinger]

Gay Marriage and the Curse of Rumpelstiltskin

11/1/12
By Robert Oscar Lopez


This Election Day, voters in Maine, Maryland, Washington, and Minnesota will be asked to cast their ballots on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Now is a good time to discuss this issue beyond the squeaky-clean case for gay marriage that has been marketed to well-intended, and in some cases gullible, straight allies. First, let's dispense with the maudlin myths and reductive propaganda.

Same-sex marriage will do nothing to address the five real-life crises facing people with same-sex attractions, many of whom do not end up in lifelong couplings: depression, eating disorders, suicide, sexually transmitted diseases, and addictions.

While bullies, biblical verses, Republicans, and chicken sandwich impresarios may cause some hurt feelings, the five aforementioned crises are overwhelmingly the result of the way gays treat one another. Straight people do gays no favors by feeling guilty and then blindly endorsing the demands of gay activists, who are largely responsible for the currents of gay culture and therefore the state of gay people's lives.

By convincing a large part of the country that people have no choice but to act upon biological instincts -- going as far as barring psychotherapists from counseling patients to resist same-sex urges -- post-Stonewall activists have created an alternate social world.

In this alternate world, people are subservient to Freud's pleasure principle and incapable of rising above their id to attain higher transcendentals such as the one, the good, and the true (where is Aquinas when you need him?).

---

Read more: Articles: Gay Marriage and the Curse of Rumpelstiltskin

More rightwing chicken little based propaganda. "If you pass gay marriage....all these horrible things will happen"

What you conveniently ignore is that gay marriage is not about gay sex but about two people of the same sex who happen to love each other and want to care for each other

 

[Katzndogz]

Gay Marriage and the Curse of Rumpelstiltskin

11/1/12
By Robert Oscar Lopez


This Election Day, voters in Maine, Maryland, Washington, and Minnesota will be asked to cast their ballots on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Now is a good time to discuss this issue beyond the squeaky-clean case for gay marriage that has been marketed to well-intended, and in some cases gullible, straight allies. First, let's dispense with the maudlin myths and reductive propaganda.

Same-sex marriage will do nothing to address the five real-life crises facing people with same-sex attractions, many of whom do not end up in lifelong couplings: depression, eating disorders, suicide, sexually transmitted diseases, and addictions.

While bullies, biblical verses, Republicans, and chicken sandwich impresarios may cause some hurt feelings, the five aforementioned crises are overwhelmingly the result of the way gays treat one another. Straight people do gays no favors by feeling guilty and then blindly endorsing the demands of gay activists, who are largely responsible for the currents of gay culture and therefore the state of gay people's lives.

By convincing a large part of the country that people have no choice but to act upon biological instincts -- going as far as barring psychotherapists from counseling patients to resist same-sex urges -- post-Stonewall activists have created an alternate social world.

In this alternate world, people are subservient to Freud's pleasure principle and incapable of rising above their id to attain higher transcendentals such as the one, the good, and the true (where is Aquinas when you need him?).

---

Read more: Articles: Gay Marriage and the Curse of Rumpelstiltskin

More rightwing chicken little based propaganda. "If you pass gay marriage....all these horrible things will happen"

What you conveniently ignore is that gay marriage is not about gay sex but about two people of the same sex who happen to love each other and want to care for each other

No one has ever stopped them from doing that either. It's not about what they do, but about what they want everyone else to do.

 

[emilynghiem]

What you conveniently ignore is that gay marriage is not about gay sex but about two people of the same sex who happen to love earch other and want to care for each other

There is both the issue of what people PERSONALLY feel/believe about gays and marriage.
AND the issue of how to make a state policy that is fair to both views.

The problem is that those who want gay marriage recognize they are being excluded.
But how many recognize that imposing this infringes on those who don't believe in public sanctioning of gay marriage, and thus causing equal discrimination! (and similar with passing legislation that negates or excludes pro-life views which are equally protected under law as pro-choice views)

Either laws should be written that exclude/discriminate against NEITHER
or the states should stay out of these personal matters, and let churches decide them independently. The States can recognize civil unions and contracts, and let the churches or private citizens handle marriage any way they believe where it doesn't infringe on others.

And the only way States can be involved in marriage is if people IN THAT STATE agree to compromise; if they don't agree, the State cannot constitutionally impose in a religious matter so it should be left to the people. The State can reflect a consensus of the people's beliefs but can't impose a religious opinion one way or the other on dissenting citizens.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Whether the LGBT means to or not, they are seeking to destroy, at least to some extent, the institution of marriage. This goes beyond religious considerations. Marriage is a specific kind of tradition. So, there are plenty of Americans who see that tradition threatened, and it's not simply because they are far right Christian wackos.

It would be akin in some ways to allowing male dancers in a gentlemen's club simply out of the interest of equality. Whatever one's opinion of gentlemen's clubs, they are a specific kind of institution, and if you force gender equality there, then you destroy the institution.

If the LGBT community wants same-sex marriage to be recognized, then seek it, just don't be so thick as to think you are not threatening a sacred institution.

 

[del]

Whether the LGBT means to or not, they are seeking to destroy, at least to some extent, the institution of marriage. This goes beyond religious considerations. Marriage is a specific kind of tradition. So, there are plenty of Americans who see that tradition threatened, and it's not simply because they are far right Christian wackos.

It would be akin in some ways to allowing male dancers in a gentlemen's club simply out of the interest of equality. Whatever one's opinion of gentlemen's clubs, they are a specific kind of institution, and if you force gender equality there, then you destroy the institution.

If the LGBT community wants same-sex marriage to be recognized, then seek it, just don't be so thick as to think you are not threatening a sacred institution.

get a grip

if it's so sacred, why do 50% of them end up dissolved?

own your bigotry

 

[Katzndogz]

Whether the LGBT means to or not, they are seeking to destroy, at least to some extent, the institution of marriage. This goes beyond religious considerations. Marriage is a specific kind of tradition. So, there are plenty of Americans who see that tradition threatened, and it's not simply because they are far right Christian wackos.

It would be akin in some ways to allowing male dancers in a gentlemen's club simply out of the interest of equality. Whatever one's opinion of gentlemen's clubs, they are a specific kind of institution, and if you force gender equality there, then you destroy the institution.

If the LGBT community wants same-sex marriage to be recognized, then seek it, just don't be so thick as to think you are not threatening a sacred institution.

get a grip

if it's so sacred, why do 50% of them end up dissolved?

own your bigotry

It's not because the institution is no longer sacred, it's because people are becoming more selfish and degenerate. Had we not had ease of divorce and proliferation of divorce for nonsense reasons, we would not be considering same sex marriage now. We had several steps to take before we got corrupted enough to start mainstreaming same sex marriage. One of the most important steps was to devalue marriage itself. Not only marriage, but the close relationships that lead to marriage. Long term bonds that include committment and fidelity have been devalued.

Normalization of same sex relationships has historically been one more symptom of a culture in deep decay that has only a short time left to survive. As many civilizations and cultures that have normalized same sex relationships, that value has never survived to be passed on. Otherwise, we would have acceptance of homosexuality for thousands of years. Acceptance of the normalcy of same sex relationships is not a cause by itself, but it is a symptom of a much larger societal disease. A disease that eventually kills.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Whether the LGBT means to or not, they are seeking to destroy, at least to some extent, the institution of marriage. This goes beyond religious considerations. Marriage is a specific kind of tradition. So, there are plenty of Americans who see that tradition threatened, and it's not simply because they are far right Christian wackos.

It would be akin in some ways to allowing male dancers in a gentlemen's club simply out of the interest of equality. Whatever one's opinion of gentlemen's clubs, they are a specific kind of institution, and if you force gender equality there, then you destroy the institution.

If the LGBT community wants same-sex marriage to be recognized, then seek it, just don't be so thick as to think you are not threatening a sacred institution.

get a grip

if it's so sacred, why do 50% of them end up dissolved?

own your bigotry

I have a grip. What I said was the marriage has a certain traditional meaning. Am I wrong?

 

[whitehall]

If the sissies and the metro-sexual libs would acknowledge the fact that the United States is the most tolerant Nation in the world and that we bend over backward (no pun intended) to accommodate sissie and homosexual issues at the expense of religious people who are deprived of their rights in some cases it might go a long way towards a mutual understanding. If the left would be honest and acknowledge that the homosexual marriage issue is all about money it might clear the air a little bit.

 

[Noomi]

If the sissies and the metro-sexual libs would acknowledge the fact that the United States is the most tolerant Nation in the world and that we bend over backward (no pun intended) to accommodate sissie and homosexual issues at the expense of religious people who are deprived of their rights in some cases it might go a long way towards a mutual understanding. If the left would be honest and acknowledge that the homosexual marriage issue is all about money it might clear the air a little bit.

How does gay marriage infringe on the rights of religious people?

 

[AmyNation]

....I remember during the whole "y2k" thing, my father loaded the house with canned meat, bottled water and bullets for his gun. That night he was vigilant, waiting for all the power to go out, and even when I pointed out the new year had already happened in other countries and they hadn't imploded, he refused to up.....

 

[rightwinger]

Gay Marriage and the Curse of Rumpelstiltskin

11/1/12
By Robert Oscar Lopez


This Election Day, voters in Maine, Maryland, Washington, and Minnesota will be asked to cast their ballots on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Now is a good time to discuss this issue beyond the squeaky-clean case for gay marriage that has been marketed to well-intended, and in some cases gullible, straight allies. First, let's dispense with the maudlin myths and reductive propaganda.

Same-sex marriage will do nothing to address the five real-life crises facing people with same-sex attractions, many of whom do not end up in lifelong couplings: depression, eating disorders, suicide, sexually transmitted diseases, and addictions.

While bullies, biblical verses, Republicans, and chicken sandwich impresarios may cause some hurt feelings, the five aforementioned crises are overwhelmingly the result of the way gays treat one another. Straight people do gays no favors by feeling guilty and then blindly endorsing the demands of gay activists, who are largely responsible for the currents of gay culture and therefore the state of gay people's lives.

By convincing a large part of the country that people have no choice but to act upon biological instincts -- going as far as barring psychotherapists from counseling patients to resist same-sex urges -- post-Stonewall activists have created an alternate social world.

In this alternate world, people are subservient to Freud's pleasure principle and incapable of rising above their id to attain higher transcendentals such as the one, the good, and the true (where is Aquinas when you need him?).

---

Read more: Articles: Gay Marriage and the Curse of Rumpelstiltskin

More rightwing chicken little based propaganda. "If you pass gay marriage....all these horrible things will happen"

What you conveniently ignore is that gay marriage is not about gay sex but about two people of the same sex who happen to love each other and want to care for each other

No one has ever stopped them from doing that either. It's not about what they do, but about what they want everyone else to do.

If that is the case, why have marriage at all? You can still love and take care of each other without a certificate. But when government steps in and says they will acknowledge some marriages and not others they violate the 14th amendment. In the absence of a compelling societal impact, it is not up to the government to decide which relationships they approve of and which they con sider "yucky"

 

[Katzndogz]

More rightwing chicken little based propaganda. "If you pass gay marriage....all these horrible things will happen"

What you conveniently ignore is that gay marriage is not about gay sex but about two people of the same sex who happen to love each other and want to care for each other

No one has ever stopped them from doing that either. It's not about what they do, but about what they want everyone else to do.

If that is the case, why have marriage at all? You can still love and take care of each other without a certificate. But when government steps in and says they will acknowledge some marriages and not others they violate the 14th amendment. In the absence of a compelling societal impact, it is not up to the government to decide which relationships they approve of and which they con sider "yucky"

Then we can have group marriages like the Manson Family. Incestuous marriages and marriages where a spouse is ten years old. The entire goal is to eliminate marriage completely. Familial relationships are the foundation of all civiliations. That's probably why civilizations that have normalized same sex relationships have historically failed.

 

[rightwinger]

No one has ever stopped them from doing that either. It's not about what they do, but about what they want everyone else to do.

If that is the case, why have marriage at all? You can still love and take care of each other without a certificate. But when government steps in and says they will acknowledge some marriages and not others they violate the 14th amendment. In the absence of a compelling societal impact, it is not up to the government to decide which relationships they approve of and which they con sider "yucky"

Then we can have group marriages like the Manson Family. Incestuous marriages and marriages where a spouse is ten years old. The entire goal is to eliminate marriage completely. Familial relationships are the foundation of all civiliations. That's probably why civilizations that have normalized same sex relationships have historically failed.

Typical conservative binary think. If you allow gays, then you have to allow brothers and sisters and children to marry. Society has identified specific dangers in incestuous marriages and child marriages. There is no harm to our society in allowing gays to marry outside of people like you who consider it yucky.
The goal is not to eliminate marriage .....it is to expand the number of people who can marry

 

[Katzndogz]

If that is the case, why have marriage at all? You can still love and take care of each other without a certificate. But when government steps in and says they will acknowledge some marriages and not others they violate the 14th amendment. In the absence of a compelling societal impact, it is not up to the government to decide which relationships they approve of and which they con sider "yucky"

Then we can have group marriages like the Manson Family. Incestuous marriages and marriages where a spouse is ten years old. The entire goal is to eliminate marriage completely. Familial relationships are the foundation of all civiliations. That's probably why civilizations that have normalized same sex relationships have historically failed.

Typical conservative binary think. If you allow gays, then you have to allow brothers and sisters and children to marry. Society has identified specific dangers in incestuous marriages and child marriages. There is no harm to our society in allowing gays to marry outside of people like you who consider it yucky.
The goal is not to eliminate marriage .....it is to expand the number of people who can marry

All you need is a redefinition of what constitutes a danger. After all homosexuality was once considered a mental disorder until mental disorder was redefined. The danger in incestuous marriage and child marriages is in the definition of danger. Change it.

 

[rightwinger]

Then we can have group marriages like the Manson Family. Incestuous marriages and marriages where a spouse is ten years old. The entire goal is to eliminate marriage completely. Familial relationships are the foundation of all civiliations. That's probably why civilizations that have normalized same sex relationships have historically failed.

Typical conservative binary think. If you allow gays, then you have to allow brothers and sisters and children to marry. Society has identified specific dangers in incestuous marriages and child marriages. There is no harm to our society in allowing gays to marry outside of people like you who consider it yucky.
The goal is not to eliminate marriage .....it is to expand the number of people who can marry

All you need is a redefinition of what constitutes a danger. After all homosexuality was once considered a mental disorder until mental disorder was redefined. The danger in incestuous marriage and child marriages is in the definition of danger. Change it.

Yea....and when my father was a child they tried to fix his left handedness

 

[spectrumc01]

No one has ever stopped them from doing that either. It's not about what they do, but about what they want everyone else to do.

If that is the case, why have marriage at all? You can still love and take care of each other without a certificate. But when government steps in and says they will acknowledge some marriages and not others they violate the 14th amendment. In the absence of a compelling societal impact, it is not up to the government to decide which relationships they approve of and which they con sider "yucky"

Then we can have group marriages like the Manson Family. Incestuous marriages and marriages where a spouse is ten years old. The entire goal is to eliminate marriage completely. Familial relationships are the foundation of all civiliations. That's probably why civilizations that have normalized same sex relationships have historically failed.

There are only two types of nations...those that failed and those that haven't (yet). All things end.

 

[spectrumc01]

If you give a man a drawing utinsel and something to draw on, inevitably there will be a naked woman on it. Heterosexualism at work.

All the cave drawings we have and not one picture of tits.

could it be that we are decendants from homosexuals and heterosexualism is the abnormal behavior?