Thursday, April 18, 2013

Lucia Purpose of undefining marriage is to destroy it

I said that this was the end-game of same-sex marriage on Face Book last night on a conversation on Pat Brittenden's page, and since then, Brendan Malone has found (or created) this wonderful graphic that proves this is the direction that activists (not your general garden variety supporter), want to take marriage - to it's destruction.


Audio of the talk.

Personally, I think any country that have undefined marriage have destroyed it already in that country, for marriage is no longer marriage when you say two of the same-sex can get married. The reality and the definition no longer match, therefore marriage no longer exists in law.

7 comment(s):

Berend de Boer said...

Lucia: The reality and the definition no longer match, therefore marriage no longer exists in law.

Exactly right.

Psycho Milt said...

...graphic that proves this is the direction that activists (not your general garden variety supporter), want to take marriage...

Except, it doesn't. It proves that this is the direction this one activist wants to take marriage in. It would also be reasonable to infer from it that some other activists share her opinion (in fact it's quite safe to infer it, because similar views can be found expressed elsewhere). What you're inferring from it (that this is the purpose of most or all activists who've pushed for this law change) is very weakly supported at best.

I.M Fletcher said...

Very good :)
Picture version of a quote I blogged about on March 26th

Ciaron said...

What you're inferring from it (that this is the purpose of most or all activists who've pushed for this law change) is very weakly supported at best.

Time will tell. I think the inference is quite strongly supported when we look back nine short years to the assurances made around civil unions and contrast to the arguments made recently for redefinition, and the utter demonisation of anyone who dares to say I disagree...

Lucia Maria said...

Berend, thanks!

Psycho, sure, it by itself does not prove that all hard-core activists are supporting same-sex marriage in order to destroy marriage, but it does prove that the activist in the picture knows that that is what same-sex marriage will do, and she is not unusual in that regard. This is something I personally have been aware of for years, and every once in a while an activist will actually say that yes, that is the ultimate plan. Many, though, are oblivious enough to think that changing the definition of marriage will do nothing to damage it - those people seem to either to be very optimistic or don't understand how these things work.

Fletch, yeah, these things do keep coming up.

Ciaron, good point.

Andrei said...

There is still sacramental marriage and when it comes down to it "State" marriage means diddly anyway since you get all the benefits and liabilities by just cohabiting and it can be dissolved by one of the parties just walking away.

The sad reality is that fewer and fewer people are even bothering these days and when they do it is more about the festivities than anything else

Isumbras said...

Andrei, I agree, but it doesn't mean they're not coming after it. I think of it as a Castle... Civil Unions they're across the moat, State Marriage the outer wall has fallen, now remains the impenetrable inner keep - Sacramental Marriage - they can never take the keep, but there will be plenty of assaults against it's walls. Not because they want it for themselves (they don't believe in it), but to ruin it for everyone so they can feel better about their ' life choices'. To leave a hollowed out smoldering ruin is the aim. Like abortion it'll be the slippery slope which according to lefties and progressives (snigger) is a fallacy. Lawfare.. It is well underway already in Nth America.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.