Manhattan Declaration's statement on marriage.

"We, no less than they, are sinners"

No, that's not the statement, but it tells you where this is going.
--
I ran across this a few times lately and finally decided to Check it out.

MANHATTAN DECLARATION: A CALL OF CHRISTIAN CONSCIENCE
Drafted October 20, 2009 & Released November 20, 2009

Founded by anti-gay hate monger, Chuck Colson, and drafted by himself, Robert George and Timothy George.

The Manhattan Declaration has a preamble, a declaration, and follows with articles on "life" "marriage" and "religious liberty," and boasts of nearly half a million signatories.

Naturally I was drawn to the section on marriage, to see what was being said about me homsexuality.

They begin with a couple of Bible verses, here's one of them:

The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man." For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. Genesis 2:23-24

They then soften us up with some “acknowledgement” of mistakes (without the anti-gay parts):

We confess with sadness that Christians and our institutions have too often scandalously failed to uphold the institution of marriage ... we have too easily embraced the culture of divorce ... we repent, and call upon all Christians to do the same.

And then proceed to bash gay-marriage.

The impulse to redefine marriage in order to recognize same-sex [marriage] ... would lock into place the false and destructive belief that marriage is all about romance and other adult satisfactions, and not, in any intrinsic way, about procreation..."

Yes, I'm sure "romance" and "adult satisfactions" are the reasons why so many gay couples want to adopt.

We'll get back to that "procreation" song and dancee thing later.

We acknowledge that there are those who are disposed towards homosexual and polyamorous conduct and relationships, just as there are those who are disposed towards other forms of immoral conduct. We have compassion for those so disposed; we respect them as human beings possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity

Yes, I felt more "dignified" by the syllable.

There's really nothing quite like having someone express their love and support for you than by characterizing the most precious moments of your life, shared with someone you love more than life itself, as a matter of good and evil.

Marriage is what one man and one woman establish when, forsaking all others and pledging lifelong commitment, they found a sharing of life at every level of being—the biological, the emotional, the dispositional, the rational, the spiritual— on a commitment that is sealed, completed and actualized by loving sexual intercourse in which the spouses become one flesh, not in some merely metaphorical sense, but by fulfilling together the behavioral conditions of procreation.

That is why in the Christian tradition, and historically in Western law, consummated marriages are not dissoluble or annullable on the ground of infertility, even though the nature of the marital relationship is shaped and structured by its intrinsic orientation to the great good of procreation.

So, in order to blunt the accusation of hypocrisy in regard to having no problem with non-procreative heterosexual-marriages, they now maintain that gays shouldn't be able to marry because LGBT-sex DOESN'T LOOK LIKE hetero-sex?

Anyone?

…the assumption that the legal status of one set of marriage relationships affects no other would not only argue for same sex partnerships;

it could be asserted with equal validity for polyamorous partnerships, polygamous households, even adult brothers, sisters, or brothers and sisters living in incestuous relationships. Should these, as a matter of equality or civil rights, be recognized as lawful marriages, and would they have no effects on other relationships? No.

No. No it could not be asserted with equal validity.

And here's why:

1) Slippery slope argument

This argument states that should one event occur, so will other harmful events. There is no proof made that the harmful events are caused by the first event.

2) Slippery Slope Fallacy

The fallacy here is the assumption that something is wrong because it is right next to something that is wrong. Or, it is wrong because it could slide towards something that is wrong.

So there's that, plus all this stuff:

-Given that incest is Biblically-approved (see Genesis), why would you even have a problem with incestuous marriage?

-Unlike same-gender attraction, being attracted to one's siblings is NOT a sexual orientation.

-There are direct social consequences to the legalization of incestuous marriage.

If the family unit, as you say, is indeed the cornerstone of society, then the home should the safest place. Legalizing incestuous marriages could fundamentally undermine the perceived sincerity of familial affection.

On to polygamy and Polyamory:

-slippery slope fallacy
-Polygamy, also God approved
-The desire to marry ONE partner is not the same as the desire to marry additional partners
-Also, there are direct social consequences of legalizing polygamous marriages.

The wealthiest would marry up hundreds if not thousands of potential mates for other men. Marriage would become a highly coveted privilege. Now add an ocean of testosterone with no place to go. The incidences of rape and molestation would skyrocket.
--
And while we’re at it, whenever they compare the “sin” of homosexuality with the “sin” of adultery, they’re comparing having a partner with cheating on one’s partner.
---
I am left to conclude one of three things about the drafters and many, if not most of the signatories of this "Declaration."

1. They know these arguments are bogus and are fully aware that they are lying.
2. They just don't care about the truth.
3. They really are that stupid.



Inquiring eyes want to know.

“It’s Gay, Not SSA”

I've been mulling on this since I first read the article and I think I've finally come to a conclusion.
--
From Truth Wins Out: February 12th, 2010 by Wayne Besen

Why I Loathe The Term ‘Same-Sex Attraction’(SSA)

Personally, I don’t like the bogus term “SSA”, which stands for “same-sex attraction.” There is no such thing (or diagnosis) as SSA and it is a manipulative attempt to separate LGBT people from their natural, inborn sexuality.

The term SSA is skillfully employed to make it appear as if fundamentalist bigots are not attacking the person, just their sexual feelings.

He then quotes from this article to show the power of words. Note, this is a different quote from the article that TWO uses:

New Poll Shows Support for Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’
February 11, 2010
By DALIA SUSSMAN

As the Obama administration proposes repealing the policy known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” a new New York Times/CBS News poll finds that a majority of the public support allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the military.

There’s less support, however, for allowing homosexuals to serve openly.

As one commenter put it: "The reason the far right uses the term “homosexual” is that it implies that our community consists of nothing but unfettered sexual urges on a daily basis."

Agreed. By using the term homosexuality, they are essentially able to characterize our equality-agenda as being sexually motivated. The use of the term "same-sex marriage" is no different.

When we hear "same-sex marriage," we think of marriage equality.

When they hear the term, they hear "sex marriage," reducing our motive for marriage-equality as being nothing more than a selfish desire to earn governmental recognition of our relationships promiscuity with the same person. Ergo, "sex marriage."

Another commenter had this to say: "SAME-GENDER MARRIAGE (SGM): Now, there’s a term I can understand and believe in. It’s not ambiguous to me at all."

I try to be consistent when using opposing terms, like, gay/straight heterosexual/homosexual, etc. It depends on what I'm writing and how I'm using the words.

So that much I'll defend in regard to the use of SSA, SSM, homosexual, etc.--sometimes they just fit.

But I will say that I have been, and will continue to use the terms "same-gender attraction" and "same-gender marriage" to help ensure that they are being taken in the context they were meant to be. As opposed to the anti-gay industry's use of the terms to reduce us, and the intimacy we share with our partners, as being nothing more than recurring sex acts.

Maggie Gallagher’s anti-gay marriage “Talking Points”

This page is basically a crash course on how to spread bigotry and hatred without coming across as bigoted and hateful.

They start with the assertion that:

Extensive and repeated polling agrees that the single most effective message is:

"Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose,
they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us."

Obfuscating the true message of intolerance by tempering it with a disingenuous message of tolerance. Doublespeak at its best: We have the right to live as we please, but only to the extent that we live our lives as they please. Justified by implying that our right to marry would infringe on their thoughts about marriage.

Their use of the word ‘marriage’ is a euphemism for love. It’s another purposeful obfuscation to avoid saying that our love is fake - which would make them look hateful.

They then advise wanna-be bigots to NEVER say you’re against same-sex marriage, and to only say that you’re against the “redefinition” of it.

Apparently saying you’re against SSM causes them a 10% drop in polls.
---
They then play the race card (in the effort to counter claims of racism?) by claiming that 60% of African Americans are against gay marriage. Which is really not a credit, it’s an insult. In other words, 60% of African Americans were duped into believing the lies they were told by people like Maggie Gallagher and organizations like her's.
---
They advocate for a Federal Marriage Amendment. This is something that I don’t think enough people understand the full motive behind. It’s an attempt to wrest the power and check of the Supreme Court (if not all courts), from any constitutional interpretation on the matter, other than to rule that marriage can only be between one man and one woman. It would instantly nullify all same-sex marriages in the union.

(No more "activist judges," at least when it comes to we godless sodomites.)

One of the reasons the courts exist is specifically to protect minorities from tyranny of the majority. Anti-gays understand this, thus the need to go over the courts' heads via anti-gay Constitutional Amendment.
---
About benefits: “If medical proxies aren’t working, let’s fix that problem. If people need health care, let’s get them health care. Don’t mess with marriage.”

Again, baloney. The anti-gays are itching to shut down any expression of LGBT’s. That includes websites, books, parades, bars, protests, LGBT groups of any kind, even just coming out of the closet. Furthermore, their vocal objections to the striking down of Lawrence v Texas (decriminalizing consensual gay sex) indicates that they heartily endorse our imprisonment.

And if they accomplish that, capital punishment is next. After all, God sanctions it in the Bible, and even says it would be our own fault:

Leviticus 20:13: If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

They then have the audacity to claim that the high (nearly 50%) divorce rate is the “reason we should be strengthening marriage.”

An especially egregious claim, as the bulk of this page’s reasoning is of the “won’t somebody please think about the children” mantra.

The phrases, Mother and Father, man and woman, husband and wife, or some variation thereof, are used no less than 16 times - usually in the context of "what's best for children."

Absence of a male or female parent, via divorce, resulting in single parenting = A-OK.

Yet they present the insanely hypocritical argument that two parents of the same gender should be prevented from raising children because it’s not the IDEAL.

Clearly, this is not about the children. It’s about personal selfishness at the expense of children.
_____________________
Edit: changed the word "gullible" to "duped." 5-11-09 @ 6:07 AM

Response to NOM ad. Sincere, non-violent, non-mocking.

Weathering the Storm


From the YouTube info:

Love Not Laws aspires to show that Margaret Mead was correct when she said "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." None of the people who appear in this video received any compensation for their time.

None of the people who worked on this video received any compensation for their time. All materials used to create the video were donated. We simply came together to promote the ideals of love and equality.

Contact us: lovenotlaws@gmail.com ©2009

Gratuitous offensive language on my part taken out, 5-6-09 @ 7:35

Exodus International on California gay marriage: People will think it's "ok."

(Alan Chambers and Chris Fabry answer each other in conversational silhouette)

Alan Chambers on the Chris Fabry show:

@ the 21:04 mark:

Chris Fabry: At the same time, when you talk to the younger generation, I think they are a little more malleable, and they will say, you know, 'if a person loves another person, what’s the problem with that?' And I keep coming back to, as this issue has come up in the last couple of days - changing the definition of anything is dangerous, and when you change the definition of marriage from one man to one woman, to same-sex couples, what could follow after that? Isn’t that the main public policy problem that we’re facing?

Alan Chambers: It is. I think that one of the most dangerous things that we can do is to redefine something as natural and defined already as marriage. Because the next generation does look at these things and say, 'see, the law has now changed, homosexuality is now proven legally as the equivalent of heterosexuality, therefore it’s ok.' And I think so many people do get their moral guidelines and use the government as their moral compass, and in this regard, it falls way short of God’s standard on this issue.

To distill it further...

Chris Fabry: If a person loves another person, what could follow after that?

Alan Chambers: Homosexuality is now proven legally as the equivalent of heterosexuality, therefore it’s ok.

Thus, according to Exodus, the 'moral' consequences of same-sex marriage is that people will think it's ok.