Cheapening The Institution Of Marriage

I really have no idea who Kim Kardashian is or why so many find who she is and what she does even remotely important.

Nevertheless, the reaction to her 72-day marriage has proponents of gay marriage using her as an example of how heterosexual on their own “cheapen the institution” of marriage more than legal gay marriage does.

So, can someone tell me, how this doesn’t cheapen the institution:

Conan O’Brien hosted his shows under a different moon this week, one hanging in the Beacon Theater. For his weeklong filming stint in New York, O’Brien packed his shows full of surprises culminating in an on-air wedding of his costume designer Scott Cronick and his partner David Gorshein, which the late show host officiated.

As the homosexual community pretends to be the new gatekeepers of the sanctity of the institution of marriage, I want to know how having your wedding on late night television, officiated by a media personality respected the sanctity of marriage.

This is hardly the only thing that bugs me. As homosexuals claim the higher ground on respecting the institution, I must ask how planning mass gay weddings doesn’t cheapen the institution.

The issue of who/what cheapens the institution of marriage is certainly up for discussion, and I would argue that short marriages, show weddings, etc. etc, are symptoms of the actual problem, which in my opinion is a cultural thing which likely comes from Hollywood. But, that’s a bigger topic for another time.

If homosexuals want to claim they do more to respect the institution of marriage than their heterosexual counterparts, the least they could do is take the institution seriously, and not treat gay marriage like a contest they’ve won, and find all sorts of ways to flaunt it, like the only reason they are getting married is to rub it in the faces of gay marriage opponents.

About these ads

28 thoughts on “Cheapening The Institution Of Marriage

  1. Amazona

    I think the claim that gay “marriage” would “cheapen” the institution of marriage is a straw man created by gay “marriage” proponents, as it is so easy to attack.

    I have not thought of gay “marriage” as “cheapening” marriage but simply as redefining it in such a way as to make it meaningless. But I have also understood that the effort is really about shoving committed gay relationships under the umbrella of the word “marriage” to try to make homosexuality appear to be no different than heterosexual relationships.

    I understand. I sympathize. I know and have known gay couples, and gay singles who yearned to be in committed relationships. I have shared their pain as they talked about feeling on the outside looking in, cut off from the most basic of human experiences, that of being accepted as part of a married couple.

    But wanting something and having it are two different things, and merely changing the definition of a term will not change the perception of that term.

    What is really happening here is a widening of the gulf between straight and gay relationships, as so many people are angry at having the term “married” hijacked just to make some people feel less isolated. It will backfire, as it has already started to, as resentment of gay couples is added to already existing bias which exists in some people.

    It is inarguable that a gay couple is not the same as a heterosexual couple, and trying to graft a term which has referred exclusively to heterosexual couples onto gay couples is not going to change that.

    The so-called “gay community” has missed a great opportunity to narrow the gulf between gay and straight couples. There was an opportunity to show respect for the traditional institution of marriage and discuss the desire to have a similar institution for gay couples, to open a dialogue about the importance of committed relationships, and to come up with a unique term which belongs to committed gay couples just as “marriage” has always belonged to heterosexual couples. There was a chance to build bridges between the two cultures and establish a mutual respect, a chance which has been destroyed as militant gays have simply demanded that others give up their own beliefs to accommodate them.

    And the strident attacks on traditional marriage to try to make it appear meaningless and therefore not worth defending are only widening the gulf and adding to the resentment.

    1. David

      I think the claim that gay “marriage” would “cheapen” the institution of marriage is a straw man created by gay “marriage” proponents, as it is so easy to attack.

      Well there is ample evidence that gay marriage opponents feel that marriage is under attack. Take, for example, DOMA. So I don’t know about the word “cheapen” specifically, but for proponents to show that there are heterosexuals equally degrading the institution would seem like a response to the notion that they are somehow attacking it.

      1. js03

        is that all you libtards can pander…relevancy…of sexually deviant behavior…vs…natural human behavior…

        its a joke…just striking out at natural marraige…acknowledges that the natural sexual behavior leads to natural marraige….and that deviant sexual behavior cannot…and never will…even imitate it…because they cannot fulfill the basic mandate in a natural marraige…become a family…

        its obvious that only mental midgets are on that bandwagon using marraige as a tool to usurp moral behavior…in the end…the final goal…is to remove the inhibition from children…to commit the sin….that they are guilty of…

    2. Wallace

      You have been warned about posting nothing but insults and attacks. As you have repeatedly been told, you will not be allowed to post here if you have nothing else to offer. // Moderator

      1. js03

        under your analogy…if we apply it to different situations…like if we were told bozo the clown was a homosexual with a terminal case of rectal cancer…we would be proper to assume that all homosexuals were clowns….and that they had rectal cancer…

        but then again…your ability to determine right from wrong is clearly lacking…and that the only thing that is meaningless…is what you think…which is…proper logic considering the state of your…assumptions…

      2. tiredoflibbs

        Wally, we all know that you cannot respond to any point made with you flinging your mental excrement.

        You are incapable of reasonable debate or conversation.

        What is so hard to understand about the rules of this blog?

        If you had more to offer than your usual BS, then you would not have had to find it necessary to create so many aliases after breaking the SIMPLE rules of this blog.

        Pathetic.

  2. Cory

    I have a question for you guys. Would it work for you guys if the government ceased recognizing marriage at all and allowed only for civil unions? It seems reasonable to me to let the government handle the legal ramifications without having to bring along the culturally and religiously charged baggage that the term “marriage” entails, and at that point nobody would be able to complain reasonably about inequality.

  3. Pingback: Cheapening The Institution Of Marriage « Blogs For Victory | Marriage is Unique

  4. Green Mountain Boy

    If there are no absolutes and family is meaningless, why is having gay marriage an absolute must?

      1. Wallace

        “Who says gay people think that there are no absolutes and that family is meaningless?”

        Conservatives who want to try to justify their gay-bashing.

  5. bardolf

    Kimberly Noel “Kim” Kardashian[1] (born October 21, 1980[2]) is an Armenian-American businesswoman, socialite, television personality, model, and actress. She is known for the E! reality series that she shares with her family—Keeping Up with the Kardashians.

    Kardashian first rose to fame in February 2007 when she appeared in a sex tape with R&B singer Ray J.

    1. neocon1

      homosexuality = sodomy = pathology = sin.
      why not just “marry” your german shepherd? many people really love them deeply.
      MARRIAGE is has been and always will be 1 man, 1 woman.
      anything else is BS, and an agenda by perverts.

      My oldest son married a beautiful woman sat. great wedding, great reception.

      1. neocon1

        Now Obama and the Democrats, the media, and America-haters everywhere are riotously sharing the same bed. This is a deliberate political choice by the top Democrats at the start of another Carter-Reagan face-off.

        That “99%” slogan is another up-yours! to the country. “Ninety-nice percent” is what Stalin got in every fake election. It’s a totalitarian concept.

        The Progs may be 99% of a deeply alienated America-hating cult, but they are more like 1% of the national vote.

        This is all very carefully rehearsed, planned, and staged street theater, directed not from Central Casting, but from Rad-Left Central, following Alinsky’s rule that perception is the key to power.

        That’s why street theater is so important to these people. They go by a formula, and once you get it, you’ll see it over and over again. This is not a news event. It’s a Hollywood back lot, complete with actors, extras, and cameras. Check out The Ruckus Society to see how they train and stage the big photo ops. They destabilize in the same of revolutionary goals that history has discredited.

        A hundred million people were murdered by Marxist dictators in the 20th century. That basic truth cannot be repeated often enough. That figure comes from left-wing historians in France. If you thought totalitarianism would fade away after the Cold War, think again. North Korea keeps concentration camps for 200,000 people, according to recent satellite photos. The moral difference among Hitler, Stalin, and the Kims is zilch, zero, nada. There are no moral distinctions among willful mass murderers.

        Liberals never seem to get that elementary point.

        Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/the_white_house_goes_dr_strangelove.html#ixzz1d1YhjzHU

    2. js03

      so kardashian is a slut that cannot control her libido…and thats about the only thing that the sodomites can find to justify thier belief that its ok for 2 men to marry…

      this is just a dodge to hide from the truth…

      the truth is…that it takes one man and one woman to start a family…and two sexually deviant people…of the same sex…can only imitate that relationship…and try to counterfeit the natural human behavior…to justify marraige…when in fact…thier likelyhood of success…is so far below anything the scientific community talks about…that its not worth mentioning…

      based on facts like…most sodomites have sex with more than 50 people per year…vs…most natural people have sex with no more than 8 people in thier lifetimes…and for sodomites…that sex with the same person more than one time…only occurs 50% of the time…yet when all inhibitions are let go…while natural people value monogamy…which reflects the whole absurdity of the issue brought up by the sodomites…that they dont intend to be loyal to thier partners…so the issue about marraige is not about civil rights…as much as it is…a political tact that has no place…in either the truth or in a marraige

  6. js03

    you cant call a “gay marraige” real…its a counterfeit…the union between a man and a woman…is unique…and sodomites cannot do, physically or spiritually…what a man and a woman become…in real marraige…

    its satans little playground…and all of these people are his little actors…attempting to mock the laws of nature…and of natures God…

    1. neocon1

      chere

      darkness and light,
      sin and purity are polar opposites.
      we all can get along if we all stop sinning.
      demanding light to make way for darkness is not “getting along”

  7. tj8

    js03 could you please let me know where exactly I can find evidence to prove your statement: “based on facts like…most sodomites have sex with more than 50 people per year…vs…most natural people have sex with no more than 8 people in thier lifetimes…and for sodomites…that sex with the same person more than one time…only occurs 50% of the time…yet when all inhibitions are let go…while natural people value monogamy…which reflects the whole absurdity of the issue brought up by the sodomites…that they dont intend to be loyal to thier partners…”

    I find it strange that you would call gays/lesbians sodomites but not using that word as a description of Kim Kardashian or any heterosexual of who has had sex without being married. The U.S. the term “sodomy” has generally been replaced by “Deviant sexual intercourse”, which is described as any form of penetrative intercourse or cunnilingus between unmarried persons.

    Marriage is how two people who love one another make a commitment to each other in front of God, family and friends. Whether you are heterosexual or homosexual should not matter. Marriage within the religious aspect also has no right to determine who can or cannot be married so long as both people are committed to each other. It is cleared stated in the bible to love one another, and to not judge. If we love one another and we do not judge then how can stating who can be committed and who can’t be correct? I believe the more important question would be why is the government governing something that is and always has been a religious ceremony?

Comments are closed.