Many defenders of same sex marriage claim that since it became legal in Massachusetts, the sky has not fallen for traditional marriage. These same-sex marriage proponents argue that marriage is not about children, therefore gay marriage does not affect Traditional Marriage. It appears however that the Dutch have bought into this argument about marriage not being about children. The Dutch have historically been known as both tolerant and traditional, but that is changing. Out-of-wedlock childbirths have skyrocketed in the last nine years, increasing 2 percentage points every year, and 2.5 points last year, to 33.5% of all births being out-of-wedlock. This increase coincides with the drive for gay marriage that started in the Netherlands in 1990. That drive brought the recognition of same-sex partnerships 9 years ago, and legal same-sex marriage 5 years ago. That's what the chart above shows.
The Dutch used to be known for their liberal social policies while maintaining some degree of tradition themselves. These statistics indicate the Dutch have joined the Scandinavians in eschewing Marriage. Stanley Kurtz at National Review has written some excellent articles documenting this.
The Dutch used to be known for their liberal social policies while maintaining some degree of tradition themselves. These statistics indicate the Dutch have joined the Scandinavians in eschewing Marriage. Stanley Kurtz at National Review has written some excellent articles documenting this.
We can’t forget the kids in this debate, because as British demographer David Coleman and Holland's premier demographer Joop Garssen pointed out in 2002, this situation produces “burdened children reared in fragile cohabiting families.”
"Marriage is what makes fatherhood more than a biological event. Marriage is the social glue that unites the two halves of the human race to share in the enterprise of parenting--increasing the chance that children will be raised with a mother and a father." said Dr. Matt Daniels, Alliance For Marriage, AFM.
35 comments :
See also
http://www.nationalreview.com/
kurtz/kurtz200602230800.asp
I've been reading up on the roots of “marriage” in terms of language and its meaning.
While looking up on Dictionary.com the definition of marriage, it is more importantly to understand it's linguistic roots and how the word marriage/to marry come into fruition in our language and also the term matrimony, regarding the state of being married.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marry
The origins of to “marry”
[Origin: 1250–1300; ME marien < OF marier < L marītāre to wed, deriv. of marītus conjugal, akin to mās male (person) ]
When you look up “conjugal”
[Origin: 1535–45; < L conjugālis, equiv. to con- CON- + jug(um) YOKE + -ālis -AL1 ]
And then look up “yoke”
2.Embryology. the part of the contents of the egg of an animal that enters directly into the formation of the embryo, together with any material that nourishes the embryo during its formation.
Many languages such as Italian, Spanish, Greek, and Polish use the term matrimony for their word marriage.
matri-
a combining form meaning “mother,” used in the formation of compound words: matrilineal.
[Origin: < L, comb. form of māter MOTHER ]
-mony
a suffix found on abstract nouns borrowed from Latin, usually denoting a status, role, or function (matrimony; testimony), or a personal quality or kind of behavior (acrimony; sanctimony).
[Origin: < L -mōnium (denominal), -mōnia (usually deadjectival), presumably orig. derivatives with -ium -IUM, -ia -IA of -mōn-, an adj. or n. suffix, c. Gk -mōn (see HEGEMONY); cf. ALIMONY ]
When someone explains their need as a woman or a man to bond; or as a child to want a mother and father whether it is philosophical or biological we do not hate persons with same-sex attraction, we are only explaining the basis and design of the complentarity of the sexes. No government can neuter the bond between man and woman even if its definition by law no longer exists.
When I was proposed marriage and accepted, walked down the aisle, or make love “coitus”, birth out a kid, change a diaper, prepare dinner, or fold laundry I don’t have on the top of my mind how can I bug the bejeebers out of persons with same sex attraction, but apparently the gay lobby believes this and wants others to think this. I love marriage, because I live marriage. If someone wants to mess with it for their personal agenda, I have no choice but to speak up and state my argument.
Do I sympathize with relationships that make a personal investment that isn't defined as marriage or matrimony? Of Course I do! But why, oh why do these person obsess to the point of paranoia compare individuals who are responsible with their procreative behavior also known as being married to the KKK?
Thanks for that detailed insight Renee. I guess you have to go to the root words, because they are even dropping some of those old meanings from the new dictionaries, because they don't think they matter, or don't want them to matter.
Jealousy is wanting something that someone else has, envy is wanting that someone else not to have something. This is a case of marriage envy, even if John and jonathan do not recognize it.
People with same sex attraction feel left out when they see marriage and families, but not in a narcisstic sense as it seems to come to fruition through legislative and judicial means. This bizarre campaign to see a word to describe the act of a man and woman being responsible when they make love “coitus” to each other, not only to children but protection of a woman’s emotional vulnerability when she naturally become emotionally attached to a man, something two people of the same sex no matter their orientation can not be, as a civil right. Persons with same sex attraction want to know despite their same sex attraction that they are accepted as human beings. We can offer them that without having destroy all references to the complementarity of the sex and the resulting needs of children from sexual activity.
Calling gay relationships or relationships that are not conjugal marriage is not the answer. When a person with same-sex attraction calls me homophobic because I stand up for marriage, I’ve learn not to defend marriage instead I give them a better option for their struggle and direct them to a Catholic group that focuses on those with same-sex attraction. I know it make seem lame to them at first, even an insult to the person, but trying to destroy marriage and the all words that relate to heterosexually, such as bride and groom/ mother and father is not only self destructive but destructive to everyone. As you said, it's envy.
I place persons who experience same sex attraction in my prayer intention in hopes they receive Grace.
Something to note being from Massachusetts
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/01/28/a_little_something_to_stick_around/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+City/Region+News
“As Massachusetts leaders struggle to find ways to stem an exodus of young people from the state, one legislator thinks he has hit upon a solution -- give them money to stay.
State Senator Brian A. Joyce, a Milton Democrat, this month filed legislation that would provide any graduate of a Bay State college $10,000 for a down payment on a house or condo. Joyce hopes the payment would soften the blow from the high cost of living and might persuade some graduates to stay and raise families here.
During 2004, about 65,000 people with college or post graduate degrees left the state, compared with 48,000 who moved into it, according to a report by the Massachusetts Institute for a New Commonwealth. In 2004, more people between the ages of 25 and 34 left Massachusetts than arrived, the study by the independent, nonpartisan think tank said. Policymakers fear that the numbers represent an exodus that would strip the state of its educated work force and damage its economic future.”
All my peers are leaving to have fsmilies in friendlier states. Children in Massachusetts are seen as a burden, how many people talk about their local school system being a burden to taxes. How many towns create over 55+ housing, but no housing for families. And if they do create affordable housing they are two bedroom, not three bedroom condo/houses so it is impossible to have more then one child (especially if they are two different genders). How many people talk about keeping property values up to keep the nieghborhood "good"? Young people are disgusted they can't buy a home, where their parents who were less educated raised them.
Young people want to marry and procreate by natural means and they want to stay in relationship bonded for life, but there is no benefit to being married in Massachusetts (other then divorce). When my husband and I do the math, we would be better off if we are divorced. The children and I would recieve more benefits and he could write off the child support to reduce his tax bracket.
If marriage has nothing to do with procreation and family, and there is no terminology to express the needs of heterosexuals they simply pick up and go where they are atleast acknowledged for who they are.
I'm sure you as myself have been told "if you don't like leave". Well many people do and this what is get. No one should be crying we brought this on ourselves as a state.
The promiscuity of the homosexual "lifestyle" borders on the unimaginable. Statistics bear this out. Social scientists Robert T. Michael, John H. Gagnon, Edward O. Laumann and Gina Kolata carried out an extensive survey on American sexual behavior and published their work in 1994. The authors comment on the investigations done by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 1982, when AIDS first appeared, and conclude:
"Gay men with AIDS interviewed in the early 1980's reported they had on average 1,100 partners in their lifetimes and some had had many more." (Source: Robert T. Michael, et al., Sex in America: A Definitive Survey; Boston: Little Brown and Co., 1994), p. 209.
Promoters of same-sex "marriage" know full well that if homosexuality is to be accepted as normal, it needs to appear like heterosexuality. For this reason, the homosexual movement creates the myth of homosexual "monogamy" where stable "couples" keep a matrimonial-like "fidelity" similar to that of true marriage.
However, a relationship based on deviated sentiment and tendency cannot create the conditions for fidelity found in true monogamous marriage. The few homosexual partners who maintain stable links are exceptions [ as the statistics bear out]. Moreover, stability in the homosexual world does not mean fidelity.
The "monogamy" myth runs contrary to the homosexual experience. In a study of young Dutch homosexuals, Dr. Maria Xiridou of the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service reported that relationships on the average last between 1-1/2 years. She also reported that each homosexual had on average eight other partners per year besides the "stable" one. (Source: Maria Xiridou, et al., "The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam," AIDS, (2003) 17(7), p. 1031.
William,
I recently read a book title Unprotected: A Campus Psychiatrist Reveals How Political Correctness in her Profession Endangers Every Student
http://www.mercatornet.com/content/view/449/0/
“She tells of Brian, a gay student who came to her because he wanted medication to help him stop smoking. During the course of the session it transpired that he and his boyfriend often pick up other men. “It’s hard to be monogamous,” he explained. Neither Brian nor his boyfriend use condoms for protection. Neither has ever been tested for HIV.
The author reviews her responsibilities toward patients suspected of having tuberculosis. The law expects the doctor to test students at-risk of TB. If the skin test is positive, she is required to give him a chest X-ray. If the combination of skin test and chest X-ray point to TB, the doctor is required to report him to the Department of Health within a day. Yet for students at-risk for HIV, she can only recommend testing and discourage unsafe activities. A man from Mars would conclude that we are more concerned about the health of TB patients than of HIV patients.”
She goes into some graphic detail regarding different sexual practices and acts, explain by the nature of how the AIDS is transmitted it is very hard for a woman to obtain it through sexual activity. In medical terms she explains the lining of the vaginal wall being very elastic and much less likely to tear due to natural lubrication during sexual arousal compared to other orifices of the body that were not intended for penal penetration. Women though obtain other STDs much easily, but they mostly travel up the phallopian tubes and cause infertility and cancer within the reproductive system (something they don’t talk about in sex education). The women who do get are probably getting it from sexual acts other then sexual intercourse (coitus).
Even though the only person my husband has been with has been me, and myself was mislead into limited “protected” sexual activity as a teenager with boyfriends I’ve been tested for AIDS six times in the past seven years! Once when I obtained a marriage license and everything I’ve been pregnant (three kids, two miscarriages). As a teenager all they talked about was AIDS. AIDS was a very important topic, because we don’t want to fear persons with AIDS, but completely ignored every other aspect of sex.
“AIDS doesn’t discriminate” well duh, it can’t it’s a virus. But viruses pass through particular activity; so many people have died from AIDS. If people really cared about their life, they would abstain. People who brag about how tolerant they are of the gay lifestyle are really giving their love ones a death sentence.
Renee, thank you for your thoughts. The double-standard is really disturbing is it not?
Here is another great article: http://www.narth.com/docs/reared.html
I've read her website before. It is very interesting to read from children from same-sex households. It is very clear they love their parents deeply, but who doesn't. As children we love our care givers unconditionally becaue we rely on them for a very survival. Even as adults we still want acceptance from our parents and please them.
But also these children address the selfish motives of their care givers also. Most recently there was an article written in the Washington Post by a young woman speaking of her identity crisis being orginated from an anonymous sperm donor with no father in her entire life by choice.
Also there is a great blog, www.whosedaughter.blogspot.com in which a middle aged women talks of her experience growing up in a tradtional household with a mom and a dad, and realizing upon her "father's" death, that he was no her biological father but her mother and "father" used a sperm donor.
"Whosedaughter" commented on my own blog to a story I wrote about my mother and my family regarding the need to know our biological ancesters.
http://uponchristianhill.blogspot.com/2006/09/progenerator-progenerator-b-and-c-and.html
When I was purchasing my own home here in Lowell, I went to the Registry of Deeds to find to backtrack the history of the home. The home dates back to its plans in 1901. I was with my mother and she wanted to find the deed of her own parents’ home, which was in Dracut off Lakeview Ave, near what is now Ste. Marguerite d'Youville Parish. We found it and she wanted a copy, because it had a signature of her father. Now my maternal grandfather passed away when my mother was only a young child and there was little to nothing material wise she has of him and few memories, so to find his signature and to have a copy of it meant something very much to her.
I take for granted even though never knowing my grandparents I know where they are buried in Lowell, The fact I know that they exist and they were real people allows me to identify with who I am, even though never having a relationship with them. I’ve had never questioned or doubted myself.
When my brother died in 1990 (car accident) we had to pick a plot, my parents choose a site in which we could all be “together”. We even moved my paternal grandfather (who I never met either) and set enough space for myself and my family, even though I was only 13 and had no family as of yet. I also have an aunt and a cousin buried along side.
Fast forward to 2005 my in-laws call me up wanting to know the plot where my husband and I will be buried, they want to be close as possible to us. In which the simply reasoned that my children will be visiting us at the cemetery in the future, along with my parents they might as well make it easy for them and be buried somewhere close.
Now I know and anyone reading this realizes we’re talking about merely decomposing bodies buried six feet underground. But we do we find the need to connect with our ancestors, like marriage honoring those who come before us is universal. We like to know who we are and where we stand in relativity to everything else in this universe.
For the critics who say no, I have one word to answer that “Roots”. Alex Haley’s “Roots” is all I have to say, if you want to tell me the biological ancestry is meaningless and that genetic material is to be implemented at the whim of those who demand the right to be parents when there is no natural act to pass down. To know that we have “Roots” in how we are procreated, excuse me “progenerated”, is a part of the human condition that will supersede such acts such as condemning a group of people to subhuman status as slaves.
Children's legal status are now nothing more then subordinates to their progenerators. What about their rights as human beings. They use to have them, when they had parents.
We do find the need to connect with our ancestors. Even more importantly, to connect with our peers. Consider yourself fortunate Renee. I have no friends because I am loyal to the Church, I cannot relate to co-workers who have no faith. I am alone.
Being a single Catholic in 21st century America is, well, pretty lousy.
Hello, first time here. I saw the comment about your blog at la salette journey and thought I would visit. Nice work. I will pray for your blog's success.
I think most people are forgetting the children in this debate. It is encouraging to see that this forum is taking that into consideration. Hopefully Christians are beginning to wake up from their slumber and will take a stand against this latest abomination.
I would like to know why gay marriage is being forced on the people of Massachusetts. The people don't want it. Why is it being forced down our throats? Is there any way of having activist judges removed? If so, should we be preparing a petition of some sorts?
Thank you for all these posts, and comments. One big reason same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts is that Gov. Romney did not order the Dept. of Health to ignore the Goodrich decision by the State Supreme Judicial Court. There is a balance of power in our system, but that balance only works if it is exercised. We need to have one activist judge impeached by the Legislature - but that is unlikely since the same-sex marriage lobby has so much political pull with the Legislature.
The next step in our fight is to ensure that the Constitutional Convention next year also holds a vote on our Marriage Petition, so that we can vote in the 2008 election on amending the Constitution to include the language that most of us believe was the original intent of the Constitution framers; that is marriage is traditional marriage, only between one man and one woman.
The Massachusetts Constitution definitely needs to be amended so as to define marriage as between one man and one woman. My parish prayer group is just now beginning to get more involved with this. That the SJC would try to impose same-sex marriage on the Commonwealth is just perverse.
Not to be negative, but it might never be ameded, even if there is a vote in 2008. With our new governor comparing us to the KKK on MLK jr day, it will be ugly. Most people can't be bother so they move out of Massachusetts. The whole place will tank, or should I say tanking.
Anyways Jay thanks for letting me talk about what marriage really is. It is about the well being of parents and children.
Gay equality is causing global warming too. If you look at this graph:
http://whyfiles.org/218glo_warm/images/variations.jpg
You can clearly see that global warming coincides with the same time that gays started to get more public attention and recognition as equals. Clearly we should draw from this that gay equality is the cause, right?
Amen, Anonynous Amen,
You are beginning to realize that two people who are not in a conjugal relationship and opening themselves to the element of sexual mutual bonding and procreation (coitus) do not fullfill the definition of marriage or matrimony. To call two people of any relationship whether they are of the same sex or of the opposite sex married or living within matrimony which do not fullfill the criteria that I mentioned in my above posts would be as silly as blaming persons with same sex attraction for global warming.
God bless you for your efforts at resisting same sex marriage in Mass. May Our Lady guide and protect you.
Good afternoon bloggers!
Found the link to DTF from La Salette Journey and thought I would check it out. Really enjoyed the posts from Margaret, Renee and John Ansley....Keep defending the faith so nobly, all of you!!!
No anonymous, the homosexual movement isn't the cause for global warming. But something far more sinister: the spread of AIDS.
Grace and peace in the Lord Jesus Christ!
I wish to thank you sir for your Christian website Massachusetts USA which defends the Faith of our Fathers. I am a member of the spiritual children of St. Rita and learned about your website from another blog.
Many blessings to you sir,
Sincerely
He prayeth best, who loveth best All things both great and small;
For the dear God who loveth us,
He made and loveth all.
~Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner
Anonymous quoted these words:
"He prayeth best, who loveth best All things both great and small;
For the dear God who loveth us,
He made and loveth all.
~Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner"
How true. And we show our love for the homosexual person best by reminding them that homosexual acts are gravely sinful objectively speaking and that the homosexual lifestyle - which is intrinsically disordered" - not only leads to spiritual death but an abundance of medical problems such as AIDS, Karposi's Sarcoma etc.
"reminding them"
Is that what you call it?
What do think oppression is?
"Oppression is the negative outcome experienced by people targeted by the cruel exercise of power in a society or social group. The term itself derives from the idea of being "weighted down."
The term oppression is primarily used to describe how a certain group is being kept down by unjust use of force, authority, or societal norms. When this is institutionalized formally or informally in a society, it is referred to as "systematic oppression". Oppression is most commonly felt and expressed by a widespread, if unconscious, assumption that a certain group of people are inferior. Oppression is rarely limited solely to government action. Individuals can be victims of oppression, and in this case have no group membership to share their burden of being ostracized..." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppression).
Notice the wording, oppression is "being kept down by unjust use of force, authority, or societal norms."
Now, our society doesn't keep homosexuals down by unjust use of force, authority or societal norms. Homosexual persons enjoy the very same civil rights which heterosexuals enjoy.
The Catechism teaches clearly and definitively that all forms of "unjust discrimination" with regard to homosexual persons should be avoided. Which is to suggest that there are just forms of "discrimination."
It is just to exclude homosexuals persons from marriage because such violates the Natural Law. However, in so doing, society isn't keeping homosexuals "down."
If homosexuals are being "oppressed" in our society, why are there so many wealthy homosexual persons? Why are there so many homosexual celebrities who have all the best material things our society has to offer?
Rosie O'Donnell doesn't look "oppressed" to me. Neither does Ellen Degeneres. I could go on but you get the point.
Where is the love?
"where is the love"
Love does not entail letting a person persist in evil or otherwise disordered behavior.
Nor does love entail re-ordering society around the practices of the mentally ill.
In a loving society, certainly, innocent people should be protected but it is not an insane asylum.
-
welcome to all the new posters and please keep coming back.
I think what happened to David Parker in Lexington is oppression.
http://massresistance.blogspot.com/2007/01
/david-parkers-civil-rights-court
-date.html
Thomas is right in saying that "Love does not entail letting a person persist in evil or otherwise disordered behavior.."
Pope Benedict XVI has once again decried a "false compassion" which would excuse abortion and euthanasia. The same applies for homosexuality which is intrinsically disordered.
Bravo Thomas. Anonymous is on the wrong track.
What a good idea creating a blog dedicated to opposing homosexual "marriage" in the Bay State. It is edifying to see this. I came across your link at Paul Melanson's blog this afternoon. It is important to resist this travesty. Keep fighting the good fight!
If we have the right to vote on marriage, why don't we outlaw homosexuality?
Post a Comment