Marriage neutering advocates, especially those embedded in the MSM, have been very clever at their manipulation of the news and debate when it comes to their well-organized, well-funded, calculated effort to neuter marriage licensing nationwide and replace marriage with a counterfeit, further tearing down the strength of the family and devaluing both masculinity and femininity. Hedonists want this because they don't like anything that implies sexual morality. For the Leftists, this is a good thing because they think it will bring about more equality in outcomes and make people generally more dependent on the government. To Leftists, that some people have better families than others is unfairness that must be corrected by public policy. People relying on family first, ahead of government, might mean having to deal with people who know your moral shortcomings and your counterproductive habits, and that can be a real buzzkill.
They know they can't win using logic and sound reasoning, so they appeal to emotion and employ cultural subversion. They know the fact that men and women are different is inescapable, despite the long attempts by Leftist gender confusion advocates to assert otherwise. Even infants know men and women are different. Even the marriage neutering advocates at "Dancing With the Stars" always pair men with women, even going so far as to pair Chaz Bono with a woman because Chaz claims to be man now (though the emperor has no Y chromosome). Any person who has struggled with their sexual orientation and has identified themselves as "gay" or "lesbian" is demonstrating that there are important differences between men and women. Anyone who claims to have undergone a gender reassignment is making a claim that there is such a difference between men and women, that counseling, hormone treatments and surgeries are needed for them to change from one to the other.
Since men and women are different, the uniting of a bride and groom is objectively, demonstrably, and documentably different than the pairing two men or two women. This is why it is Constitutional (and important) to treat marriage differently from other kinds of voluntary associations, including what a minority of states and a few countries have falsely called "marriage" in their licensing.
In an effort to circumvent what should be self-evident truths to most people, marriage neutering advocates have misused language.
Let's clear up some terms.
Prejudice:
Bigot (Bigotry):
Discrimination:
Marriage:
Marriage has always united a bride and a groom; a man and a woman. This has been the case around the world for all of human history. It wasn't something that was forced upon people in some elaborate scheme to make homosexual people suffer. Only in very recent human history has any government or religious group or culture started to call something without a bride or without a groom “marriage”. However, neither the state nor federal governments in the USA created marriage. Our laws simply have described and recognized what already existed, and often placed limits on marriage licenses based on existing marital status, age, consanguinity, etc.
Gay:
For a much longer time than anyone has called brideless pairings “marriage”, “gay” has been applied by homosexuals to themselves, especially male homosexuals. It sounds a lot better than “one man sodomizing another”.
Gay “Marriage”:
My own marriage is quite gay, thank you, but that’s not what most people are talking about when they use this term. If two people of the same sex get a state-issued “marriage” license together, some people call that “gay marriage”, but the government does not ask or verify or require anything about someone’s claimed sexual orientation. In other words, two men who are not homosexuals can get a license together where they are issued to brideless couples. Likewise, any man and any woman, regardless of heterosexuality or homosexuality, can get such licenses. So this phrase is not accurate when referring to law.
Homosexual “marriage”:
More accurate than the previous term.
Same-sex “marriage”:
More accurate than the previous two terms.
Neutered "marriage":
This is a more accurate way to describe what is really going on – the removal of gender from marriage licensing/law - marriage neutering or neutering marriage.
“Ban” on “gay marriage”:
This phrasing is a deliberate lie meant to manipulate the audience. Nothing in state or federal law amounts to a ban. The MSM and other marriage neutering advocates are deliberately using this phrasing to lie about what is going on. Sometimes, they even go so far as to say “ban on gay unions” or “ban on gay ceremonies”, which is an even bigger lie. Likewise, the MSM may refer to people who believe marriage is between one man and one woman as “foes” of “gay marriage” but for some reason, they don’t call them “foes” of polygamy or those who promote marriage over shacking up for both-sexes couples as "foes of cohabitation".
Right to marry:
When people say there is a "right to marry", a distinction must be made. We do have freedom of association. If two or more people, regardless of sex, want to live together in their own home and share their lives, share a motel room, etc., they should be free to do so. They are also free to have a ceremony. This is the right to marry. However, when someone asks for a marriage license from the state, they are asking someone else (the rest of the people in that state) for something. There is no right to a state-issued license. Marriage licenses can, without violating the Constitution, be reserved for marriages, meaning bride+groom unions. Loving v. Virginia, which struck down actual bans some states had imposed on actual marriages based on something irrelevant to marriage (skin color) to reinforce segregation does not require the neutering of licenses to remove something inherent to marriage (sexual integration). In those days, both-sexes couples could be prosecuted for living together unmarried or denied shelter together, and thus banning marriage between a man and a woman based on skin color was denying them the freedom of association, since they then couldn't even be together. Conversely, forcing the people of a state who have twice voted to affirm the bride+groom/marriage requirement in their state marriage licensing is denying the people of that state their freedom of assocation (in this case, to not associate) and their right to vote.
Freedom to marry:
When referring to marriage licenses, this is more accurate than the previous term. However, many of the people throwing this term around only care about their freedom to marry, not those of say, polyamorists or polygamists. Whether a state has marriage licenses or neutered licenses, everyone, male or female, heterosexual or not, has the same freedom to marry. That someone doesn't want to get a marriage licenses because of the sex-inclusive requirement (bride+groom) doesn't mean it isn't offered to them equally. Members of PETA have just as much access to hunting licenses as anyone else. It is important to remember that not all freedoms are rights.
Marriage equality:
This is perhaps the most effective term used by marriage neutering advocates, but it is deceptive. The uniting of a man and woman is inherently different than the pairing of two men or two women, just as heterosexual coitus in inherently different than homosexual sodomy. The uniting of a man and woman is the only kind of association that naturally produces new citizens who are dependent on guardians. Marriage neutering advocates try to devalue this difference or even disparage the natural result of heterosexual coitus: human reproduction. The difference, however, is enormous and profound.
The voluntary associations are not equal in content, behavior, or result, and therefore there is no Constutional requirement that they be treated equally.
Even if brideless or groomless pairings are issued "marriage" licenses from the state that are then recognized by the federal government, they still wont be equal in reality to a the bride+groom union.
Finally, many prominent "marriage equality" proponents do not believe in equality for all, mocking those who swear they were born polyamorous and want what they insist are ongoing loving loving marriages between three or more adults licensed by the state, and disparaging cousin couples, who do not have marriage equality as only some states will issue them marriage licenses.
Gay rights:
Just as I am more pro-choice than many people calling themselves pro-choice, I support more rights for homosexual people than many "gay rights" advocates. These days, however, if you actually believe, as some homosexual people do and as every great civil rights leader in history, that marriage unites a bride and a groom, you are falsely labeled as "against gay rights" or "anti-gay" or "hateful". It doesn't matter how many actual rights of homosexual people you fight to protect, apparently, or how loving you are towards people who are homosexual. This tactic is slanderous.
Homophobic:
This has largely been abandoned by marriage neutering advocates. Very few people who oppose the neutering of marriage are truly homophobic, meaning having an irrational fear of homosexual people or homosexual behavior. However, it appears to have been somewhat abandoned because marriage neutering advocates perceive it as not assigning enough wrong intent and mean-spiritedness to someone who opposes their toddler-like tantrums, cultural subversion, and expansion of government intrusion into private personal lives. They have moved on to politically, socially, and financially attacking people who resist their demands, backed by their embedded advocates in the MSM, using the tactics of mockery, threats, murdering in effigy, isolation, misrepresentation, false association, and business disruption.
Tolerance:
This is a word that homosexuality advocates used to use all of the time, but now that marriage neutering advocates have become intolerant, they don’t want to call attention to their incrementalist, bait & switch, and fascist tactics by using the term. They have become intolerant themselves, moving from "stay out of our bedrooms" to "you must endorse what we do in our bedrooms or lose your job", or in the case of personal relationships such as a child to a parent, "your must endorse what do do in our bedrooms and say it is the same thing as what you did to make me, or I will reject you and your love". True tolerance means allowing something you disagree with. This is certainly not how so many marriage neutering advocates are behaving, nor what they are demanding. Instead, they demand agreement, approval and endorsement.
Don't Fall For It
In addition to this manipulation of language and MSM propaganda, marriage neutering advocates of used deceptive polling and misleading reports about polling to try to scare people in the majority into thinking they are out of touch. They have used limited information about exceptional "hard luck" cases to falsely equate recognizing the difference between marriage and nonmarriage with cruelty. They have used judicial activism, and other courts have seized upon that activism in a circular dance to justify further activism in overriding the consent of the government. They have used Trojan Horses.
While most people are going about their lives, raising children that were a natural result of marital lovemaking, they are constantly and relentless bombarded with marriage neutering advocacy, both blatent and subtle, and many of them just want the whining to stop. Some of the erroneously think the Leftists who are marriage neutering advocates will stop whining, stop hounding them, will be happy and satisfied, and will stop dismantiling our society and stop subverting American values if marriage is neutered nationwide by judicial fiat. Unfortunately, that wouldn't be result.
Don't fall for the manipulation. It is Constitutional and important to treat marriage - the uniting of a bride and groom - differently than other kinds of voluntary associations.
They know they can't win using logic and sound reasoning, so they appeal to emotion and employ cultural subversion. They know the fact that men and women are different is inescapable, despite the long attempts by Leftist gender confusion advocates to assert otherwise. Even infants know men and women are different. Even the marriage neutering advocates at "Dancing With the Stars" always pair men with women, even going so far as to pair Chaz Bono with a woman because Chaz claims to be man now (though the emperor has no Y chromosome). Any person who has struggled with their sexual orientation and has identified themselves as "gay" or "lesbian" is demonstrating that there are important differences between men and women. Anyone who claims to have undergone a gender reassignment is making a claim that there is such a difference between men and women, that counseling, hormone treatments and surgeries are needed for them to change from one to the other.
Since men and women are different, the uniting of a bride and groom is objectively, demonstrably, and documentably different than the pairing two men or two women. This is why it is Constitutional (and important) to treat marriage differently from other kinds of voluntary associations, including what a minority of states and a few countries have falsely called "marriage" in their licensing.
In an effort to circumvent what should be self-evident truths to most people, marriage neutering advocates have misused language.
Let's clear up some terms.
Prejudice:
1Prejudice is essentially pre-judging, judging before there is sufficient criteria to make a judgment. However, seeing the value of distinguishing the difference between marriage and nonmarriage in law is based on what we know and have experienced throughout history and biology, not judging something ahead of time. It is not irrational nor a violation of someone’s rights to distinguish marriage from nonmarriage.
: injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims
2
a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge
b : an instance of such judgment or opinion
c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics
Bigot (Bigotry):
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intoleranceNo hatred, intolerance, or prejudice is needed to distinguish marriage from nonmarriage. In fact, there are people who do not disapprove of homosexual behavior or relationships, including some people in such relationships, who agree that marriage unites a bride and groom and it is important and valid for our laws to describe this.
Discrimination:
1ALL laws discriminate. The important thing is: on what basis do they discriminate? Discrimination on the basis of behavior is necessary and Constitutional, and forming a sex-inclusive union is a different behavior than forming one that excludes one of the sexes. The bride+groom requirement for marriage licensing does not exclude the participation of anyone based on their sex or sexual orientation. Really. The clerks do not ask about your sexual orientation. The discrimination of requiring a bride+groom union for state licensing is not unconstitutional, arbitrary, prejudiced, or immoral discrimination.
a : the act of discriminating
b : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently
2
: the quality or power of finely distinguishing
3
a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually
b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination>
Marriage:
Marriage has always united a bride and a groom; a man and a woman. This has been the case around the world for all of human history. It wasn't something that was forced upon people in some elaborate scheme to make homosexual people suffer. Only in very recent human history has any government or religious group or culture started to call something without a bride or without a groom “marriage”. However, neither the state nor federal governments in the USA created marriage. Our laws simply have described and recognized what already existed, and often placed limits on marriage licenses based on existing marital status, age, consanguinity, etc.
Gay:
For a much longer time than anyone has called brideless pairings “marriage”, “gay” has been applied by homosexuals to themselves, especially male homosexuals. It sounds a lot better than “one man sodomizing another”.
Gay “Marriage”:
My own marriage is quite gay, thank you, but that’s not what most people are talking about when they use this term. If two people of the same sex get a state-issued “marriage” license together, some people call that “gay marriage”, but the government does not ask or verify or require anything about someone’s claimed sexual orientation. In other words, two men who are not homosexuals can get a license together where they are issued to brideless couples. Likewise, any man and any woman, regardless of heterosexuality or homosexuality, can get such licenses. So this phrase is not accurate when referring to law.
Homosexual “marriage”:
More accurate than the previous term.
Same-sex “marriage”:
More accurate than the previous two terms.
Neutered "marriage":
This is a more accurate way to describe what is really going on – the removal of gender from marriage licensing/law - marriage neutering or neutering marriage.
“Ban” on “gay marriage”:
This phrasing is a deliberate lie meant to manipulate the audience. Nothing in state or federal law amounts to a ban. The MSM and other marriage neutering advocates are deliberately using this phrasing to lie about what is going on. Sometimes, they even go so far as to say “ban on gay unions” or “ban on gay ceremonies”, which is an even bigger lie. Likewise, the MSM may refer to people who believe marriage is between one man and one woman as “foes” of “gay marriage” but for some reason, they don’t call them “foes” of polygamy or those who promote marriage over shacking up for both-sexes couples as "foes of cohabitation".
Right to marry:
When people say there is a "right to marry", a distinction must be made. We do have freedom of association. If two or more people, regardless of sex, want to live together in their own home and share their lives, share a motel room, etc., they should be free to do so. They are also free to have a ceremony. This is the right to marry. However, when someone asks for a marriage license from the state, they are asking someone else (the rest of the people in that state) for something. There is no right to a state-issued license. Marriage licenses can, without violating the Constitution, be reserved for marriages, meaning bride+groom unions. Loving v. Virginia, which struck down actual bans some states had imposed on actual marriages based on something irrelevant to marriage (skin color) to reinforce segregation does not require the neutering of licenses to remove something inherent to marriage (sexual integration). In those days, both-sexes couples could be prosecuted for living together unmarried or denied shelter together, and thus banning marriage between a man and a woman based on skin color was denying them the freedom of association, since they then couldn't even be together. Conversely, forcing the people of a state who have twice voted to affirm the bride+groom/marriage requirement in their state marriage licensing is denying the people of that state their freedom of assocation (in this case, to not associate) and their right to vote.
Freedom to marry:
When referring to marriage licenses, this is more accurate than the previous term. However, many of the people throwing this term around only care about their freedom to marry, not those of say, polyamorists or polygamists. Whether a state has marriage licenses or neutered licenses, everyone, male or female, heterosexual or not, has the same freedom to marry. That someone doesn't want to get a marriage licenses because of the sex-inclusive requirement (bride+groom) doesn't mean it isn't offered to them equally. Members of PETA have just as much access to hunting licenses as anyone else. It is important to remember that not all freedoms are rights.
Marriage equality:
This is perhaps the most effective term used by marriage neutering advocates, but it is deceptive. The uniting of a man and woman is inherently different than the pairing of two men or two women, just as heterosexual coitus in inherently different than homosexual sodomy. The uniting of a man and woman is the only kind of association that naturally produces new citizens who are dependent on guardians. Marriage neutering advocates try to devalue this difference or even disparage the natural result of heterosexual coitus: human reproduction. The difference, however, is enormous and profound.
The voluntary associations are not equal in content, behavior, or result, and therefore there is no Constutional requirement that they be treated equally.
Even if brideless or groomless pairings are issued "marriage" licenses from the state that are then recognized by the federal government, they still wont be equal in reality to a the bride+groom union.
Finally, many prominent "marriage equality" proponents do not believe in equality for all, mocking those who swear they were born polyamorous and want what they insist are ongoing loving loving marriages between three or more adults licensed by the state, and disparaging cousin couples, who do not have marriage equality as only some states will issue them marriage licenses.
Gay rights:
Just as I am more pro-choice than many people calling themselves pro-choice, I support more rights for homosexual people than many "gay rights" advocates. These days, however, if you actually believe, as some homosexual people do and as every great civil rights leader in history, that marriage unites a bride and a groom, you are falsely labeled as "against gay rights" or "anti-gay" or "hateful". It doesn't matter how many actual rights of homosexual people you fight to protect, apparently, or how loving you are towards people who are homosexual. This tactic is slanderous.
Homophobic:
This has largely been abandoned by marriage neutering advocates. Very few people who oppose the neutering of marriage are truly homophobic, meaning having an irrational fear of homosexual people or homosexual behavior. However, it appears to have been somewhat abandoned because marriage neutering advocates perceive it as not assigning enough wrong intent and mean-spiritedness to someone who opposes their toddler-like tantrums, cultural subversion, and expansion of government intrusion into private personal lives. They have moved on to politically, socially, and financially attacking people who resist their demands, backed by their embedded advocates in the MSM, using the tactics of mockery, threats, murdering in effigy, isolation, misrepresentation, false association, and business disruption.
Tolerance:
This is a word that homosexuality advocates used to use all of the time, but now that marriage neutering advocates have become intolerant, they don’t want to call attention to their incrementalist, bait & switch, and fascist tactics by using the term. They have become intolerant themselves, moving from "stay out of our bedrooms" to "you must endorse what we do in our bedrooms or lose your job", or in the case of personal relationships such as a child to a parent, "your must endorse what do do in our bedrooms and say it is the same thing as what you did to make me, or I will reject you and your love". True tolerance means allowing something you disagree with. This is certainly not how so many marriage neutering advocates are behaving, nor what they are demanding. Instead, they demand agreement, approval and endorsement.
Don't Fall For It
In addition to this manipulation of language and MSM propaganda, marriage neutering advocates of used deceptive polling and misleading reports about polling to try to scare people in the majority into thinking they are out of touch. They have used limited information about exceptional "hard luck" cases to falsely equate recognizing the difference between marriage and nonmarriage with cruelty. They have used judicial activism, and other courts have seized upon that activism in a circular dance to justify further activism in overriding the consent of the government. They have used Trojan Horses.
While most people are going about their lives, raising children that were a natural result of marital lovemaking, they are constantly and relentless bombarded with marriage neutering advocacy, both blatent and subtle, and many of them just want the whining to stop. Some of the erroneously think the Leftists who are marriage neutering advocates will stop whining, stop hounding them, will be happy and satisfied, and will stop dismantiling our society and stop subverting American values if marriage is neutered nationwide by judicial fiat. Unfortunately, that wouldn't be result.
Don't fall for the manipulation. It is Constitutional and important to treat marriage - the uniting of a bride and groom - differently than other kinds of voluntary associations.
Walrus writes: "Marriage has always united a bride and a groom; a man and a woman. This has been the case around the world for all of human history"
ReplyDeleteThis is factually incorrect.
A law in the Theodosian Code was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans. This law prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed.
If marriage only ever united brides and grooms, then a law prohibiting same-sex marriage would have been unnecessary.
I think its time you drop this claim from your rhetoric.
California's original DOMA was signed into law by Jerry Brown during his first time as Governor, decades before the first country neutered their licenses. But by your reasoning, Jerry Brown was quashing a growing trend of SSM.
DeleteNot at all. By my facts, same-sex marriage is not a new invention, and your claim that "marriage has always united a bride and a groom" is simply false. You should abandon it.
DeleteYes, it is a new invention. Your rare citing of isolated flukes does not mean any society recognized something as marriage if it didn't unite the sexes.
Delete