The danger of homosexual marriage

" Brian Fitzaptrick writes:

To understand the danger posed by homosexual “marriage,” you must join the great scholars in asking some fundamental questions. Why do some civilizations flourish? Why do others perish?

Perhaps the definitive work on the rise and fall of civilization was written back in the thirties by an Oxford anthropologist. In Sex and Culture, a study of 86 human civilizations ranging from Rome to Tahiti, J.D. Unwin found that a society’s destiny is tied inseparably to the limits it imposes on sexual expression. They highest levels of social development are reached only by cultures that practice what Unwin called “absolute monogamy,” in which marriage is limited to one man and one woman, sexual outside marriage is not tolerated, and divorce is prohibited.

Absolute monogamy promotes cultural growth by solving what anthropologist Margaret Mead termed the “central problem of every society,’ to “define appropriate roles for men.” Monogamous civilizations require men to choose either lifelong celibacy or the responsibilities of a husband: fidelity, breadwinning, and fatherhood. Most marry, to their good fortune, because married men tend to be healthier, happier, and more productive than bachelors. Joseph Schumpeter, the great economist, attributes the success of capitalism not to the entrepreneur’s lust for money or status, but to his love of family. The central pillar of any healthy civilization is the self - sacrificing married man who doesn’t spend his income on himself, but prefers “to work and save primarily for wife and children.”

Civilizations cease to grow, found Unwin, within two to three generations after retreating from absolute monogamy. Moral standards erode when a society’s members chafe at the discipline imposed by monogamy, and begin to gratify their personal impulses without regard for the consequences inflicted on others. According to sociologist Robert Nisbet, “What sociologists are prone to call social disintegration is really nothing more than the spectacle of a rising number of individuals playing fast and loose with other individuals in relationships of trust and responsibility.

If individualistic selfishness and self - seeking are not checked, Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin warns us, a society will lapse into “sexual anarchy.” In The American Sex Revolution , Sorokin wrote that “both men and society are degraded” as a culture becomes “sexually obsessed.” “The members of such a society are habituated to look at the opposite sex as a mere instrument for pleasure...to these individuals, talk of human dignity, religious and moral commandments, and rules of decency is just bosh...the society degrades the values of womanhood and manhood, of motherhood and fatherhood, of childhood and venerable age, of marriage and family, and even of love itself.” Divorce, desertion, and deviance become commonplace, when “what used to be considered morally reprehensible is now recommended as a positive value; what was once called demoralization is now styled moral progress and a new freedom.” Sorokin describes this as “moral schizophrenia.”....

Such selfish, undisciplined societies meet ugly fates. In his Social and Cultural Dynamics, Sorokin studied 1,623 “internal disturbances in Greco-Roman and European history,” and found that sexual permissiveness almost always precedes or accompanies “an explosion of sociopolitical disturbances.” Unwin found that every society, without exception, that rejects absolute monogamy either becomes a stagnant cultural backwater or collapses altogether.

What does all this mean for homosexuality and “gay marriage”? No sector of our society is more obsessed with sex, or more promiscuous, than the homosexual subculture. To accept the practice of homosexuality is to make irresponsible sexual behavior easier for our society. To permit homosexual relationships to be formalized is to establish a dangerous precedent that people may form sexual unions outside the healthy one - man, one - woman framework. In effect, we’d be rejecting Unwin’s “absolute monogamy” model for good, because rights are very difficult to withdraw once they’ve been granted.

What of Mead’s “central problem” in society, defining the duties of the male? Homosexuality does nothing to channel men into the husband/father/provider role that so benefits society. Male homosexuality entices men away from that role, by offering a sexual outlet with no strings attached .... Lesbianism eliminates male responsibility altogether....

According to Unwin “the historical evidence [suggests] that homosexuality is a habit that appears in a society ... that has been absolutely monogamous, and is relaxing.” If Unwin is correct, then the increasing prominence of homosexuality in our culture confirms ominously that America has strayed too far from the straight and narrow morality that invigorates cultures. To give homosexual couples the right to marry would be like taking another giant, virtually irrevocable step down the road to sexual anarchy and cultural ruin. "

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3064153/posts

 

you are saying that encouraging sex addicted men to f%^k each other in their hairy, stinking assholes is a bad thing? Damn....

 

This is an interesting issue. No doubt increasing acceptance of homosexuality is a mark of a disintegrating society and culture.

At the same time, we have to recognize that monogamy is not the norm for men, either historically or in nature. Our society is unusual in that we have stood Darwin on his head. Instead of the most successful, dynamic alpha males producing the most offspring, we have the biggest losers producing excessive offspring, which the rest of us get to support. The most succesful males now produce the fewest offspring. It is a biological anamoly that cannot be good news for homo sapiens.

 

+ 16.9 trillion...and counting...

 

having govt programs which discourage males from being responsible harms society for multiple reasons...

and it seems it may all tie together....

having govt programs where the welfare office replaces having responsible fathers... can be very harmful to society for multiple reasons...

for instance...

http://narth.com/docs/coll-harren.html


Education on this issue includes information about environmental contributors to same-sex attractions. When I educate I begin by explaining the various developmental needs children have, needs for connection with the same-sex parent and same-sex peers. I explain that children are not simply born with a sense of their own gender but that their gender identity is formed through connections and interactions with others, primarily members of the same sex. I explain that children look first to their same-sex parent and then to same-sex peers to form their own identity: to understand how they measure up, how they fit in, what value they have as male or female, what it means to be male or female, etc. When children do not form healthy same-sex bonds and their needs for same-sex connection go unmet, these needs do not go away; they simply intensify or take on another form. Typically, near puberty, these unmet needs take on a sexual form, the emotional needs become sexualized (Satinover, 1996).

These developmental factors, combined with genetic temperament, which impacts perceptions, all go into the development of homosexuality. Other factors such as sexual abuse or traumatic experiences may also contribute to the formation of same-sex attractions. Since this information is largely unknown to the general public, it is very important that we begin to share it in order to generate a more widespread understanding of this issue.

I believe there are various ways of educating on this issue, some more effective than others. I believe that if we are going to be effective in our educational attempts we must do so in non-offensive ways, in ways that promote tolerance and are acceptable to all people, both heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. Although education on the origins of homosexuality has not always been well-received, I believe there is a way of doing so that can be non-offensive. As I have educated on this issue, I have found a way that seems to work well. I believe there are two keys to educating effectively: our motivation behind educating and our emphasis in educating.

 

As in Islamic societies??!! . So Fitzaptrick [sic] is a fool. That's what we learn here. What about you fhl? Do you also believe this tripe?

And what does homosexual marriage have to do with monogamy and divorce. The divorce rate among heterosexuals is 50%. The rate of monogamy among heterosexuals and homosexuals in the the U.S., with the exception of Utah, is 100%. We don't yet have any idea what the rate of divorce among homosexual couples will be. Please stop cluttering ET with this utter crap.

It is obvious that that the degree of advancement in any society is not related as cause and effect to the degree of "absolute monogamy" practiced in that society, but to something else entirely.

Furthermore, it is clear that while homosexual and heterosexual marriage may have something to do with "[channeling] men into the husband/father/provider role that so benefits society, " it is not marriage hetero- or homo- that channels men away from that role. It could be capitalism and the profit motive that has much to do with the latter, or antiquated laws that prevent homosexual couples from adopting children.

 

you write as if it were normal for two men to be able to come home to the same smelly argumentative man year after year.
As I have said before gay or not gay, men can't live together for a long time. Its fricken impossible. Many of us had room mates before we got married. Could any male here really imagine coming home and seeing the same fricken man in the house day after day, year after year.


Its just not going to happen. One in a million male couples could probably make gay marriage last. (or less)

There was a study linked to here where the courts were tracking kids in homes with same sex couples. after three years there were no male couples still together and there was a terribly high incidence of the kids being abused in same sex families.

 

Seattle libraries to porn watchers: Come on in
Sunday, September 8, 2013 by:Vanessa Ho

When is watching graphic sex movies in public, or near kids, an acceptable thing to do? Let’s see.

You can’t legally show porn in your house that can be seen from a park or playground. You of course can’t show it to kids. You can’t watch it at work, unless you want to get fired or sued. And you can’t watch on your iPad on a plane, or the gym, without expecting some outraged person to tell you to shut it down.

But in Seattle, there’s one place where you can watch porn in public, in view of others, and around kids, and no one official will bother you: The library. To be specific, the 27 branches of the Seattle Public Library...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Toys R Us has pledged to stop marketing toys as exclusively for boys or girls.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...oys-R-Us-to-stop-gender-biased-marketing.html

 

Brian is a bit off base here, with no facts to back up his rather haphazardly formed opinion.


The same could be said about many uneducated, and poverty stricken sectors of society, regarding sexual promiscuity.


Most if not all individuals within society have an obsession with sex that starts from an early age.

How individuals deal with their obsessions, can depend on a plethora of unknown factors.



What Brian is also missing here is this:

Men, more so than women, are in general more prone to sexual promiscuity. This is well known to be the case with most males of most mammal species.


It's really simple when we think about it from a fertility perspective.


A Male can ejaculate enough sperm cells in one session to impregnate thousands, if not millions or more females.

To the contrary, Females can only accept one sperm from one male in order to reproduce.


During the mating season for most mammals, the males seek to impregnate as many females as they are able to- simply because they can and it's a lot of fun.

Females however, will be very selective as to who they choose for mating because once a sperm cell has fertilized her egg, she will spend the remainder of the upcoming seasons laboring and caring for her offspring.
She will therefor have to wait many months before having another opportunity to procreate.



Fast forward thousands of years through the evolution of civilized societies, and much of our individual sexual nature remains unchanged from the basic desires of all of the animals.



Now, if we allow male children to think it is appropriate or ok to seek a sexual relationship with other males, we will likely see an endemic of rampant sexual behavior and its accompanying diseases; more so than if we only allowed or encouraged heterosexuality.


Why?

For the reasons mentioned above^^^. Males naturally look to have sexual intercourse with as many as possible, without the worry of having follow up responsibility. It's just human nature.

When young males have the opportunity to engage in sexual intercourse, they will usually quickly engage, so long as they have a desire to do so.


Females, as already stated, will generally be more selective in their sexual encounters.
This works as a natural road block for the males insatiable drive to reproduce.



We have all heard it said that "children are impressionable", Have we not?

The reason we have heard it said is because of the truth of it.

Children are indeed very impressionable.


As adults we must take care and act responsibly to ensure our children's young and impressionable minds are properly equipped to deal with life and society.


It is for these reasons, a society accepting of homosexuality will be prone to more acts of rampant sexual behavior.


This isn't necessarily a bad thing for society, as it may actually even benefit from homosexuality in the long run.


Why do I say this?


Simply by means of an often needed population control.


Barring miracles or anomalies in reproductive nature, when men have intercourse with men, and women with women, babies simply cannot be born as a result.

AIDS and other STDs will also take their toll, as viruses are more easily transmitted through the blood stream after rigorous and bloody butt sex.


Also, men are generally not as sanitary as women, so other bacteria related diseases are likely to be sexually transmitted and promoted as well.

(Footnote: As a female's role in nature is the caregiver for her offspring, they better understand the importance of cleanliness and generally make for superior groomers over their male counterparts.)



Now to say that allowing or even encouraging gay sex may actually have long term benefits for society doesn't necessarily mean that it will bring long term benefits to the many individuals within that society.


During my ministries to remote tribes of the Amazon, many tribal leaders welcomed Christian teachings into their society.


Why?


One reason is that the lessons of sexual monogamy helps to cut down on sexual promiscuity, which in turn cuts down on jealous behaviors, thereby reducing the number of murders.


Homosexuality is all but non-existent within their quite natural societies.


Why?

From an early age boys and girls are corrected if they engage in any questionable behavior regarding homosexuality.


As they develop into young adolescents, they are taught specifically what is deemed to be sexually appropriate behavior.



Now, just because it is important to teach children proper sexual etiquette, does not mean that all children will turn out to be heterosexual as a result.

Some may in fact be incapable of heterosexuality, just as some may be incapable of homosexuality.

Not one of us can say for certain what is right and what is wrong with every individual.


If some of the children of the world, were naturally ingrained with the desire to be intimate only with other people of the same sex, Who are you to judge the tendencies that may have been given to them?


Who are you to say their inheritance should not be passed on to their loved one just as in any man- woman marriage?


Are you so righteous in your marriage to the opposite sex, that you feel you deserve a special tax break not privy to others in their lesser forms of marriage?


It is far more important to not judge others and to forgive them for their acts, than it is to impose any laws which restrict the sexual union of others.



There are many acts which will have negative effects on society- gambling, drug and alcohol abuse, but I have seen nary a thread here addressing these issues.

Perhaps the reason for such an urgent fight against homosexual behavior stems from an ignorance in the matter.


Those who have an understanding of alcoholism, and gambling, may simply be less afraid of these acts as they are able to relate.

Those who don't have an understanding tend to be the most afraid of what they do not understand.


I think we'll find that as we continue to educate ourselves and others around us, we will all be more able to relate with one another~ thereby finding a means to co-exist.

 

Given our current culture of metrosexuals being the new Macho Men and hard nosed nasty bitches with far more balls than any of the metros, that sounds like a good idea. Ken can shave every part of his body while Barbie lets everything grow out. Ken can don a purse and makeup while Barbie explores high powered executive jobs leading corporate America. Ken can learn to bake brownies while Barbie figures out how to leverage a corporate buyout.

And Ken and Barbie will get just exactly what they deserve.