By Max Musson:
The following video features Ryan Anderson, a William E. Simon Fellow at the Heritage Foundation and Co-Author of ‘What is Marriage? Man & Woman: A Defense’, responding to questions from a homosexual regarding homosexual marriage at the ‘Communicating Values Marriage, Family & the Media Conference’ held by the Stanford Anscombe Society on 5th June this year. The conference was held at Oberndorf Event Centre at Stanford Graduate School of Business.
In the ‘about us’ section of their website, the Stanford Anscombe Society (SAS) describe themselves as: ” … a student group that promotes discussion regarding the roles of the family, marriage, and sexual integrity in the lives of Stanford students both now and after graduation. SAS is neither religiously nor politically affiliated, instead basing our positions on human principles. We hold that the family is the key unit of a stable society, and we define the family as one man and one woman bound together by marriage, along with any children that they might have. SAS defines marriage as a union, until death, between one man and one woman. We promote the idea that sexual integrity is necessary for this family unit to be successful.”
Ryan Anderson is correct. The union between a same sex couple is not a marriage. Marriage has always been a union of sexually complimentary spouses — a permanent exclusive union of a man and a woman, a husband and wife, mother and father — and every individual has the right to enter into such a relationship.
If homosexuals decides they don’t want to be a part of such a union, they are not being discriminated against by wider society, they are simply exercising their freedom of choice to enjoy ‘the adult relationship of the choice’, which is not marriage.
This is a brilliant rebuttal of the argument for homosexual ‘marriage’.
By Max Musson © 2014
# # # #
David Yorkshire
- Edit
Yes, and notice the rhetoric of the homosexual: “I…I…me…me…me…” There is no thought for the cohesion of the wider society. This is the nature of the homosexual relationship: mere physical self-gratification, Jeremy Bentham’s pleasure principle.
jackdaw
- Edit
The homosexual relationship is a non-productive relationship, how in Gods name can it be considered in any way equal to the traditional man/woman marriage that came into existance with the explicit function of creating a FAMILY.
Shaun
- Edit
Why do these homosexuals even want to get married? They seem to project themselves as the antithesis of tradional practices, anyway? I’ve never been to a homosexual wedding, but I reckon even the ”liberals” would be praticng some serious frontal lobal emotional-control to rationalise what they were seeing. Madness — just like the whole of the almost finished Western culture is mad!
Walter Greenway
- Edit
Well bugger me someone has actually stood up to a queer and not been sued!
PharmaPhil
- Edit
I could see the point in civil partnerships but in “Gay” marriage no.
As far as I am concerned it’s another attempt to erode & corrupt one of the foundations of our society & culture.
It will never stop under the present regime.
katana
- Edit
“Ryan Anderson is correct. The union between a same sex couple is not a marriage. Marriage has always been a union of sexually complimentary spouses — a permanent exclusive union of a man and a woman, a husband and wife, mother and father — and every individual has the right to enter into such a relationship.
.
If homosexuals decides they don’t want to be a part of such a union, they are not being discriminated against by wider society, they are simply exercising their freedom of choice to enjoy ‘the adult relationship of the choice’, which is not marriage.”
.
—————————
.
Anderson is kind of begging the question (from the homo point of view), or at least avoiding the question. Until recently in all White societies marriage has been defined to only exist between men and women. The homosexuals are not disputing that historic fact, but are saying the definition should be changed to include same sex “partnerships”.
.
And are they being discriminated against? No and yes. No, in the sense that by current definition they don’t qualify. But yes, in the sense, by pulling out the magic “discrimination card”, they say marriage should be redefined to include them. And if you resist that idea you are likely an intolerant bigot, homophobe or worse.
.
Anderson does skillfully fend off that particular homosexual’s line of argument, but he does so, in that short clip, not on any principle but on current “definitions”. Clever, but no substantial argument.
.
Homosexuality should be opposed and kept firmly in the closet because, unrestrained, it aids in the death of our race. I think, wishfully perhaps, any homosexual concerned about the survival of our race should recognize that fact.
.
The widespread promotion of homosexuality by the Tribe’s MSM is just one of many tactics being used by them to destroy us. The end result of all these tactics is to dramatically reduce White birthrates below replacement level. Thus “necessitating” the importation of more blacks and browns to utterly transform (destroy) our societies.
heechee
- Edit
When the first, child pops out of his born male partner, conceived and carried naturally without any additional help from science and the medical profession, then I will concede they are married. Until then it’s all fantasy/make believe!
David Yorkshire
- Edit
From the rhetoric in my articles, people may have the impression that I hate homosexuals. I do not. In fact, I have known homosexuals that I have got on very well with. I have known they are homosexual, but they have never discussed it other than as part of a joke. Whilever homosexuals preserve the status quo and accept their limitations (just as everyone has limitations to keep social cohesion), very few people have a problem with them. It is when they start pushing for change in social norms that they invite hate, for deep down, most people know that one cannot have multiple norms in a society, for that society will swiftly break down.
.
The homosexual act is an abnormal act, for reasons I explained in depth a while ago in a previous article (one partner has to imitate the opposite sex, among other things), but if it’s done in private, I mind it no more than someone who, say, picks their nose and eats it. Equally disgusting and I equally don’t want to know about it. If they joked about it, I might find it amusing; if they wanted us all to appreciate it and have parades for it, I would question their morals and sanity.