Fairfacts Media has a post in which he proposes that opposing Gay Marriage is a distraction from advancing the conservative agenda.
Hmmmm
The question should be why should the State have any interest in whatever personal relationships you have?
And the answer to that my friends is It Shouldn't. It is none of the State's business who you decide to shack up with - none.
So why marriage then? There is one type of human reltionship that does benefit from public acknowledgment and that is the HUSBAND/WIFE relationship which produces children and that benefits because the MAN acknowledges and takes responsibility for any children born of the woman, they by presumption being his offspring.
Furthermore for any society to persist into the future it is necessary for that society to produce children because, like it or not, we are all mortal. So if a society does not produce enough children to replenish itself it dies. No way around this my friends - none.
Because of this need to produce generations to replace the ones approaching senescence western societies, in the past produced policies to encourage those of reproductive age to reproduce, conferring some benefits usually in the form of tax breaks to those who who undertook this most vital and important task.
But the least great generation - those born of the generation who grew up in struggle and fought the second world war were a self centered and self absorbed bunch who preferred to squander the wealth built up by their parents in hedonism and not put their personal wealth and energies into raising their successors but into the ephemeral pleasures of this world - the fools not realizing that they were useful idiots in the march towards the Marxist vision of utopia where children would be the property of the state and would be socialized not into the values of their parents but those of the all powerful state.
And in the name of progress policies undermining the integrity of the family were introduced while the link between marriage, sex and reproduction weakened sometimes by rewriting the language to rewrite people in the image of the Marxist ideal.
And that is what gay "marriage" really is - it is a trojan horse, sold as a human rights issue but really another progressive rewrite of the language to break the link between marriage, family and children all the better to gain control of the children that are born.
As with all these revolutionary attempts to rewrite human beings into a vision that will lead to utopia the law of unintended consequences follow. In this case one of these is becoming evident with the debate over the retirement age. See the least great generation in their never ending pursuit of personal pleasure and self gratification failed to actually have enough children to support them in their dotage - result the population ages and the costs of supporting the aged and infirm rise while the numbers capable of producing the wealth to support those costs decline.
The solution thus far to avoid the crunch has been immigration of peoples into the west from areas of the world where people are more fecund.
And the long term consequences of this will be???????
Hmmmm
The question should be why should the State have any interest in whatever personal relationships you have?
And the answer to that my friends is It Shouldn't. It is none of the State's business who you decide to shack up with - none.
So why marriage then? There is one type of human reltionship that does benefit from public acknowledgment and that is the HUSBAND/WIFE relationship which produces children and that benefits because the MAN acknowledges and takes responsibility for any children born of the woman, they by presumption being his offspring.
Furthermore for any society to persist into the future it is necessary for that society to produce children because, like it or not, we are all mortal. So if a society does not produce enough children to replenish itself it dies. No way around this my friends - none.
Because of this need to produce generations to replace the ones approaching senescence western societies, in the past produced policies to encourage those of reproductive age to reproduce, conferring some benefits usually in the form of tax breaks to those who who undertook this most vital and important task.
But the least great generation - those born of the generation who grew up in struggle and fought the second world war were a self centered and self absorbed bunch who preferred to squander the wealth built up by their parents in hedonism and not put their personal wealth and energies into raising their successors but into the ephemeral pleasures of this world - the fools not realizing that they were useful idiots in the march towards the Marxist vision of utopia where children would be the property of the state and would be socialized not into the values of their parents but those of the all powerful state.
And in the name of progress policies undermining the integrity of the family were introduced while the link between marriage, sex and reproduction weakened sometimes by rewriting the language to rewrite people in the image of the Marxist ideal.
And that is what gay "marriage" really is - it is a trojan horse, sold as a human rights issue but really another progressive rewrite of the language to break the link between marriage, family and children all the better to gain control of the children that are born.
As with all these revolutionary attempts to rewrite human beings into a vision that will lead to utopia the law of unintended consequences follow. In this case one of these is becoming evident with the debate over the retirement age. See the least great generation in their never ending pursuit of personal pleasure and self gratification failed to actually have enough children to support them in their dotage - result the population ages and the costs of supporting the aged and infirm rise while the numbers capable of producing the wealth to support those costs decline.
The solution thus far to avoid the crunch has been immigration of peoples into the west from areas of the world where people are more fecund.
And the long term consequences of this will be???????
Thanks Andrei
ReplyDeleteReading your comments, the difference in opinion is perhaps not as great as might first appear.
Other than the state recognising gay marriage or some marriage-type arranged (perhaps it needs another name to differentiate from traditional marriage?), we have similar beliefs.
I do not want the state dictating its belief on churches. As private organisations, churches should be free to operate their club by their own rules. Gays will no doubt find plenty of other churches to marry in.
Unless you are of the opinion many gay man are trapped in sham marriages and maintain a facade or lie of a straight marriage, I fail to see how allowing gay marriage will affect the birth rate.
Gays are unlikely to reproduce anyway, but if they form marriage-type partnerships, well, they could adopt or add to the human population by one of the partners fathering their own child.
If we encourage more stable partnerships, then the overall birth rate could increase.
Of course, male-female marriage is the ideal. I support strong families like what I was brought up in, and I wish more had experienced it for themselves.
However, God did not create me the way he might have. It took some time for me to accept it, not until my 30s actually, and I see gay marriage as a way for me to be just like anyone else.
Unlike some radicals who feel ostracised, I just want to be part of the mainstream and be like everyone else.
I like to think that taking one factor out, I pretty much am.
If it isn't the business of the state then why is it the business of the church?
ReplyDeleteAnd I agree, it isn't the business of the state. It's nobody's business but the couple, be it straight or gay.
Rather than see it as "the business" of the Church, look at it as a service it offers that people want.
ReplyDelete