GAY TRUTH

Below in red is an article from a homosexual counselor and psychologists. If you are prepared to read this excerpt from his book, you will note clearly that their desire for marriage is fake. They know clearly, they are unable to fulfill what most would understand are the requirements of traditional marriage. They want monogamous marriage initially, but after a while they also want multiple homosexual partners. Marriage is in name only. Instead, they intend to be driven by their sexual urges (or as the author says testoserone ie: lust) and not their vows or promises to each of a monogamous relationship. To say we are just like the failures of heterosexual marriage, heterosexual divorce and adultery is not the same. It is structurally different, biologically different, it is barren and it is built on lust not love according to this author below. The slogan - Love is Love has now proven to be a lie.  Ultimately LGBT folk care less about the vehicle of marriage, it was simpl

Marriage plays a fundamental role in civil society because it is characterized by sexual complementarity, monogamy, exclusivity, and permanence. These marriage norms encourage men and women to commit permanently and exclusively to each other and take responsibility for their children.[1] In recent decades, a revisionist view of marriage has eroded these norms. No-fault divorce was the first major trend to undermine a strong marriage culture. Now the effort to redefine marriage away from male-female complementarity has gone even further in abandoning the central characteristics of the institution. But if the law redefines marriage to say the male-female aspect is arbitrary, what principle will be left to retain monogamy, sexual exclusivity, or the expectation of permanency?[2] Such developments will have high social costs. The New Language of Marriage New terms have even been coined to describe this new outlook on marriage. Here are some examples. “Monogamish.”  A 2011  New

Image via Wikipedia VANCOUVER, British Columbia , November 29, 2011 ( LifeSiteNews.com ) – While true marriage advocates are celebrating a recent decision upholding Canada ’s 121-year-old ban on polygamy , they are less thrilled by the fact that in his decision the judge in the case took a swipe at what he called the “alarmist view” that the legalization of homosexual ‘marriage’ would lead to the legitimization of polygamy. True-marriage advocates have long maintained that Canada’s 2005 redefinition of marriage to include homosexual couples would pave the way for any kind of sexual union to be legally called marriage, including polygamy. Chief Justice Robert Bauman But Chief Justice Robert Bauman criticized this view for “miss[ing] the whole point.” “Committed same-sex relationships celebrate all of the values we seek to preserve and advance in monogamous marriage ,” he said, adding that the “doctrinal underpinnings of monogamous same-sex marriage are indistinguishable from those o

Image via Wikipedia No doubt you’ve heard friends - even Christian friends - say, “Well, why shouldn’t gays be able to marry like anyone else? What will it hurt? It won’t affect marriage, and it will help them build stable families.” Certainly that’s the line of thinking that won the day in New York , which just legalized so-called gay marriage . But nothing could be further from the truth, as illustrated by a recent New York Times article entitled “ Married, With Infidelities .” The writer, Mark Oppenheimer, asked whether “we make unrealistic demands” on marriage.  The “unrealistic demands” he’s talking about are monogamy . For an answer Oppenheimer turned to advice columnist Dan Savage . Savage is a “married” gay man who often “inveighs against the American obsession with strict fidelity.” Those are Oppenheimer’s words, not mine. According to Savage, while monogamy has its “advantages,” it’s not for everyone, because, he says, monogamy leads to “boredom, despair, lack of va

Image via Wikipedia A so-called conservative writer parroted  some silly arguments  for same-sex marriage in the  Sunday Age  recently. He finishes by saying that marriage is a good thing (which it is), so it should be available for homosexuals as well. He is wrong big time here. First of all, it is heterosexual marriage which is good for couples, not any old relationship. The wonderful interaction of a man and a woman in the complementarity of heterosexual marriage is what makes it so special and beneficial. This is not true of other types of live-in situations. But there is an even more important reason why this writer is so very wrong. The truth is, homosexuals do not at all have in mind what most of us understand marriage to be. Indeed, they have something radically different in mind. Most seek to radically expand and alter the common understanding of marriage. Long-term monogamous fidelity is seldom part of this new understanding. Simply reading through the homosexual press t