Tuesday, April 30, 2013

What are same-sex "marriage" promoters really after?

From the site of the Illinois Family Institute earlier in April (via Fr. Z.) comes this (emphasis and comments from Fr. Z., but edited).
Homosexual Activist Admits True Purpose of Battle is to Destroy Marriage

By Micah Clark | 04.06.13

Even knowing that there are radicals in all movements, doesn’t lessen the startling admission recently by lesbian journalist Masha Gessen. On a radio show she actually admits that homosexual activists are lying about their radical political agenda. She says that they don’t want to access the institution of marriage; they want to radically redefine and eventually eliminate it.
Here is what she recently said on a radio interview:
“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.
The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.
I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, [The MSM and entertainment industry, by their portrayal, wants you to think they occupy the moral high ground.] and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.”
Frankly, the details of this last paragraph remind me of some of the convoluted relationships in Andy Warhol's experimental film fantasies or of the Marquis de Sade's La philosophie dans le boudoir. Yesterdays vices, today's virtues.

Source: "Why get married when you could be happy?" (RN Life Matters, June 11, 2012).


4 comments:








JM

said...

"But Dr. Blosser, isn't it all in the end about love and embracing life? Old forms and structures are constricting, and who are you to say...?"

Against this, the part line of the Church seems like it is to say, "Sorry, but marriage has always been defined as..."

The, when challenged on marriage, it will say, "Look at all the examples. Look at all our WONDERFUL young people cohabitating but also leading remarkable, faithful lives! We believe love best flourishes....," still refusing to condemn anyone or anything. Phrases like "sin" and "evil" become very infrequent, and the culture stresses niceness and fulfillment.

Any question who will lose the war of rhetoric? You can't paint a convincing moral picture without white and black. Unfort., the Church today seems determined to paint in beige. Let's pray this new Pope leads the way with some compositions of more sharply contrasting hues and values. A re-presentatiion of this worthy "oldie" would be a good start:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html





Anonymous

said...

Yes, you're quoting the views of ONE journalist. Don't assume her words are drops leaking from a massive bucket of conspiracy.





Anonymous

said...

There is nothing wrong with encouraging the acceptance homosexuality and bisexuality in society. It certainly won't hurt anyone. It should be seen as normal and equal to heterosexuality, because it is! A huge benefit to society is that same-sex couples can adopt babies to give them a loving home and family.





Pertinacious Papist

said...

Anonomous (immediately above),

I truly appreciate your positive outlook and optimism, and I grant that this view may be approaching that of majority status in our society. As you will agree, however, that alone does not make it correct.

This is a highly sensitive issue that requires work on the part of individuals sincerely interested in sorting out fact from opinion, and in many cases individuals no longer seem interested in hearing any facts that disagree with their preconceptions.

First, as to the assumption that these same-sex relationships are harmless to society, or even a benefit, please consult the following monograph (PDF) by Princeton Professor Robert George and two co-authors: What Is Marriage?.

For a page of vitally important links to articles revealing the true facts about the Exodus ministries, and other religious positions on the same-sex issue, please consult Prof. Robert J. Gagnon's Articles Online.

Kind regards, PB