Christian Newswire: "The REAL danger of same-sex marriage!"

[Bluebear]

Ready for a REAL haul o' crap????

=====

“The Howard Center For Family, Religion and Society publishes a new essay in The Family in America which reveals the undermining of traditional marriage and how it threatens not only the family and social stability, but civil freedom.”

Contact: Larry Jacobs, The Howard Center, 513-515-3685 voice or text, 1-800-461-3113, [e-mail]


MEDIA ADVISORY, July 27 /Christian Newswire/ -- How does gay marriage undermine the social function marriage serves? The author of “The Real Danger of Same-Sex Marriage,” Stephen Baskerville, traces the answer to the destruction of heterosexual marriage. The article appears in the latest edition of The Family in America (Issue 5/6,Volume 20), a monthly periodical edited by Allan Carlson and covering family issues since 1987.


Taking a fresh look at the gay-marriage debate, “The Real Danger of Same-Sex Marriage” concisely traces the destruction of marriage and parent-child relations through the history of American family law. Revealing the dangerous intermingling of state and private affairs, the essay details numerous cases where government agencies have stripped children from the arms of loving parents under the guise of unsubstantiated child abuse allegations and involuntary divorce trials. Consequently, parents’ once absolute right to parenthood is stripped from their hands and marriage is reduced to a formality.



Marriage’s primary purposes are for procreation and the rearing of children. Due to the sterile nature of homosexual unions, the issue of gay adoption is closely tied to gay marriage. This radical innovation shifts marriage’s focus from providing for the needs of children to securing the rights of adults to marry, create families through raising someone else’s children. It also means creating families which must raise someone else’s children. The author thus concludes, “It is parents—not gay parents, but parents generally—who are being besieged by an increasingly repressive state apparatus and denied basic due process protection.”


A copy of The Family in America with Stephen Baskerville’s article “The Real Danger of Same-Sex Marriage” may be requested by phone at 1-800-461-3113 ($2 for shipping & handling) or accessed online at www.profam.org. Annual subscriptions to the monthly periodical, Family in America (including the monthly supplement New Research), is available for a $25 membership fee (www.profam.org/THC/thc_member.htm).


For more information or to arrange an interview please contact Larry Jacobs at [e-mail] or (cell) 513-515-3685.

http://www.earnedmedia.org/hc0727.htm

[Richard Steele]

1. Just how mentally stunted does someone have to be....

...to string together this utter crap, in this order, and actually
think that it adds up to a conclusion?

[Bluebear]

3. "Parents are besieged by an increasingly repressive state apparatus"

Holy cannoli. :crazy:

[smtpgirl]

2. The real danger of same sex marriage is that gay couples

tend to stay together longer, and I might add, have better sex.

Jealous RW homophobes

[pooja]

4. So if they allow gay marriage.. do you think they would adopt

snowflakes???

[Bluebear]

6. Ahhhhhhh your 666th post!

GARGOYLES!!!!!!!! DARK SIDED!!!!!! AAAAAAGGGGGH!

[movonne]

5. The whole world is blowing up and they are blathering about

gay marriage...

[madeline_con]

14. If the world blows up, and gays can't marry, it's o.k!

Stay focused on what's REALLY important, will ya?!

[Kailassa]

7. So gay marriage is bad because gay parents must adopt

in order to have a family.

And that means the government is going to steal children from "normal" laving families and give them to gays to raise and corrupt.

Um yeah, yeah, sure ...

The trouble with logic is that to use it, you need to find a grain of logic in the proposition you are arguing against, and there is none here.

[FairVotes4all]

8. saayyyyyy.....

Isn't Bush big on saving the snowflake babies? Let the Gay community adopt them. Two birds with one stone people.

[magellan]

9. Now I'm totally disillusioned.

Marriage’s primary purposes are for procreation and the rearing of children.

I thought people get married because they love each other and want to spend their lives together?

[NMMNG]

11. No, no, no

According to the wingnuts the sole purpose of marriage is to procreate and rear children.

That's why couples who seek marriage licenses must prove they are capable of and willing to bear children. That is also why couples who fail to produce children within five years are automatically divorced by the state. :sarcasm:

[lolly]

12. Defining "Marriage's Primary Purpose"

One problem here is that there is no one primary purpose for marriage.

Historically and politically, it has had several purposes. In different cultures and different eras, one or more purpose can overshadow the rest.

One of its purposes is to regulate sexual activity--and this is the one the religious anti-sex people rely on even if they don't explicitly say so. The irony is that this is a state interference in private matters, precisely the sort of thing the writer quoted in the original posting was ranting against.

Other purposes are to provide an economic unit, to provide for legitimacy of children and inheritance of property, and, of course, to provide a means for two people to formalize their commitment to each other.


I'm sure we could think of several others if we tried. So whenever anybody starts talking about the sole or the primary purpose of marriage, he's oversimplifying and chooses the purpose that suits his beliefs, not some eternal truth.

[readmoreoften]

18. Yeah, and the writer of that article couldn't read what you just said.

Because he isn't intelligent enough. That's the problem. They don't get it. They are morally retarded.

[silverweb]

10. Good grief.

That doesn't even make sense! I wonder just how many logical fallacies are in this article.... :crazy:

[madeline_con]

13. Un Bee leeve able

Edited for spelling. :eyes:

First of all, this hooey about, "Marriage’s primary purposes are for procreation and the rearing of children."

Besides the fact that the original purpose was about ownership and inheritence of wealth, does this mean childless couple will be forced to divorce?


Does this, "Consequently, parents’ once absolute right to parenthood is stripped from their hands and marriage is reduced to a formality." mean I'm no longer legally married to my husband if I were to be forced to go to court to get my child back if falsely accused of child abuse?

How do they get that gay marriage "destroys the social function" marriage serves? What, we're all going to throw our kids in the street and leave our spouses because Bob and Larry tie the knot?
These people are dangerously stupid.

They should at least have their driving privileges revoked in the interst of public safety. Anyone that stupid is capable of all sorts of lunacy.

[rucky]

15. So now hate groups send out press releases?

The white hoods are definately off.

At least they leave their cel-phone numbers.

[Jim Lane]

16. So children from all over the country are being taken to Massachusetts?

Well, it's good to know we're getting some use out of those black helicopters while we wait for the big day.

[Jim Lane]

17. Self-delete (dupe)

[readmoreoften]

19. Since children are so important, I propose a marriage AGE LIMIT.

No woman can marry after menopause. She must present a doctor's note showing that she is fully able to bear children before she can marry.

[MiniMe]

20. Also, nobody that has had a hysterectomy, tied their tubes, or had

a vasectomy can get married. After all, these people can't reproduce. I do have a question for the jerk, does somebody who has had one of the above after they marry be required to divorce, since they can't bear children anymore? Oh, so many questions. :sarcasm:

[underpants]

21. I thought interracial marriages where what threatened marriage

Maybe I heard that wrong...well I do know that I heard it from basically the same sources.

[readmoreoften]

23. Get with it, that was the fashionable RW argument 30 yrs ago!

Having pretty much lost that boogeyman, they've moved on to the next threat to marriage.

[EFerrari]

22. More rightwing revisionism and the dangerous intermingling

of logical fallacy with laugh out loud goofiness.

:rofl: