KNOW WHAT'S AT STAKE: If we don't win on this Definition of Marriage, Civilization will change, since the very definition of Marriage and Family (it's foundations) will change. It's that important to stop.***
Notes from "Faith and Culture" Colleen Carroll Campbell's Interview (on EWTN) with Maggie Gallagher, from the Institute for Marriage & Public Policy----
On Same-Sex Marriage (please use these notes)
We MUST MAKE A CHOICE: What Marriage IS & What Marriage is FOR? (The Gay agenda wants to change the very fundamental meaning of the word 'Marriage' to mean something other than it does, e.g., look it up in history books and the Webster Dictionary, so that it is NO LONGER linked to bringing together a man and a woman to come together and procreate/bringing forth new life and new families in a life-long [life-producing] BOND).
(1) Gay Agenda says - 'No difference between the Love of a husband and wife, and the Love of 2 men or 2 women. If they win this VERY FAULTY LOGIC, then Homosexuals and Lesbians will claim this as a 'civil right' and anyone who supports Traditional Marriage alone will be seen as a "bigot" or "racist" in the law and be persecuted. (The Gay Agenda is trying to make us ashamed for defending the Good of this Unique (life-producing) Union between Husbands and Wives.
OR
(2) Traditional Marriage Position: There is something Uniquely Special about Unions between Husbands and Wives that Justifies their Special Status in Civilization and Culture, because OUT OF THIS UNION new human life is born AND this new human life is Connected directly to their own biological parents, for the love and care of those parents and the good of the children and society itself. (for the Common Good of families and civilization, from generation to generation)
- Many studies have shown that many bad things happen to children when fathers and mothers do not stay married. Children NEED their Father AND Mother. This is Intergenerational, and for the Common Good of Married Couples, Children, and Society Itself. (See book 'Fatherless America' to see more results of studies that show dire consequences of families that do not have a father within it, but have a mother. Thus, the importance of having BOTH a father and a mother for children AND their proper psychological development).
- As studies have shown, Traditional Marriage (where the biological father AND mother are present) is for the Common Good of society and the very welfare and healthy development of Children in society. If gay unions are defined as Marriage, then children will have NO right to have a father and a mother raise them. Is this truly in the best interest and for the Common Good OF OUR CHILDREN!
- This is an issue of Natural Law itself, the Government should NOT be meddling in this at all. It is NOT their jurisdiction.
- IT's CIVILIZATION ITSELF that's at stake if we lose this debate and
not preserve the unique Definition of Marriage exclusively for One Man
and One Woman.
If not, the permanent re-definition of Marriage will not only destroy it's Unique Status and Identity for the Common Good of Society, Civilization as we know it will be destroyed! Also, our children and future children will be governmentally indoctrinated with this falsehood and society/civilization itself will be lost (if Marriage IS dis-connected FROM the good of procreating new children into a biological father and mother relationship). - The Gay Agenda is clear = SEPARATE child-bearing/procreation FROM the very Definition/Purpose of Marriage, so Marriage is possible to ANY other type of relationship (and no longer unique). This can not happen. The only way the Judges have been able to do this (up to this point) is to NOT discuss the PURPOSE of Marriage (see CT court decision). We MUST make judges spell out the PURPOSE OF Marriage. It's not just Love (as the Gay Agenda claims), because then Marriage can define ANY Loving relationship; it is more Unique than that. It is for the Purpose of a Love between a Husband and Wife, that can ALSO BRING FORTH NEW LIFE (a child/children) and A FAMILY.
- The Family is the fundamental cell of society. Re-defined and Civilization Falls. (Civilization will change, since the definition of Marriage and Family -from which our very Civilization is built upon- will change).
- What's At Stake (very High Stakes if we lose the Argument about 'What Defines a Marriage'): If gay's Re-define Marriage (and we sanction it) and they claim it as a 'civil right' victory, then anyone who opposes it will be seen as a "racist" or "bigot". (And racist laws in this country are pretty harse). Plus, if legalized, EVERY AGENCY MUST DO IT (including religious) OR it will be treated as 'racist' or 'bigots' in the public square. IF WE LOSE THIS ARGUMENT ABOUT WHAT TRULY DEFINES A MARRIAGE.
- Point: There is something Uniquely Special (even life-producing) between the Unions of Husbands and Wives (opposite sexes, yet complementary) VERSES being an issue of bigotry or racism against gays.
- If we lose the argument on What Defines a Marriage AND What is it's Purpose, it will bring about a natural conflict between Government AND Religious Organizations.
- One argument for gay 'marriage', is as a 'civil rights' issue, 'if you can be married, why can't I?' Response: Marriage acknowledges the uniqueness of men and women in a life-long, life-producing, bond. This can not be Re-defined by anyone, let alone the Government. It JUST IS. IT's a fact of natural law, that men and women have child-bearing relationships where a family is biologically formed and children are properly raised. This is not subject to debate, it just is. It's biological, not bigotry. Gays do NOT have the right to re-define what Marriage is, and Impact the future of children, let alone change Civilization as we know it, (and always have).
- What is Marriage for? The Gay agenda, is to DIS-CONNECT Marriage from child-bearing/biological family producing. (Very simply, because by this definition, gay couples biologically don't qualify!). Once again, it's biological, NOT bigotry.
- PURPOSE OF the Marital Union: Every Man and Woman who marries, is at least CAPABLE of having children. Quite simply, gay couples are not.
- Public Good of Marriage (having BOTH a father AND a mother) for children, is proven in many recent studies, (found in books like, Fatherless America).
- This change in the definition of Marriage, will not only change Civilization, but it will LEGALIZE (legitimize) an Immoral Lifestyle and Relationship (homosexual and lesbian lifestyle and relationship).
For more resources, go to: www.marriagedebate.com, www.nationformarriage.org, Pope John Paul II Cultural Center, OR e-mail Ms. Gallagher at: info@imapp.org for more information or to come and speak in your church, diocese, event, etc. (This program, recently aired on EWTN, is capable for purchase by phone 1-800-854-6316. Customer Service 1-205-271-2990. The DVD to this show is item #: FCD-26, and the CD is item #: FCC - 26, both entitled "same-sex marriage".
This is one of the most retarded things I've ever read.
What part of this artical are you refering to as retarded. That marriage is between a man and women, or the fact that they want re-defined Marriage.
This is Pro Life Blogs.
Stick to the topic.
'Retarded' is an accurate term for the article. It's got so many obviously wrong articles in it I won't even bother trying to address them all. Besides, it hurts to read.
The author is clearly one of those who BELIEVES that CAPITALISATION should be used whenever something IMPORTANT is said, and SCREW GRAMMAR. Of course, EVERYTHING he says must be IMPORTANT.
It's just one long paranoid rant about how homosexuals are bent on destroying civilisation, with a bit of the old Natural Law thrown in - a bit of medieval thinking that real philosophers gave up on long ago.
Suricou Raven, I remember that name! You tried this same EXACT tactic: "It's got so many obviously wrong articles in it I won't even bother trying to address them all" back in 2007 too. I save it all, dear. Got chapter line and verse, because it was so outrageous, all that you claimed. We disproved then, in 2007, in numerous responses, "all your bogus claims from your so-called 'carefully screened' objective 'materials.'" You used so many "obviously wrong articles" yourself back then, and yet you still come here attacking us for exactly what you were proved to have done. Amazing.
Besides you emphatically stated back then, "I *HATE* the pro life movement" so why are you even here? You already know full well you cannot make a good, substantiated case, nor change our minds. You can only rant at us, throw insults around and hate. You don't really want to learn anything.
You make the same attacks as most Democrats for pro-choice candidates. We get attacked for being "single issue voters" (prolife) and then when we delve into other issues, you still amazingly attack us for NOT being single issue people! And we've had to point this out at least once before on this blog this past month to another prolife person in these comboxes. It is so predictable.