On 26 on June 2015, the US Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, requiring all states to issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples, as well as to recognize such certificates issued in other jurisdictions. However, as shown data American Institute of Public Opinion Gallup, homosexuals are in no hurry to exercise their newly acquired rights. As expected, no influx of “oppressed sex minorities” into registration authorities took place, despite the complete elimination of “discriminatory” restrictions.
If before the widespread legalization of same-sex marriage, 7,9% of American homosexuals were in them (concluding them where possible), then after legalization, only 2,3% decided to formalize their relationship. A year after the Supreme Court decision, only 9,5% of American homosexuals were in same-sex “marriages,” and two years later - 10,2%, and most of them were aged 50+. At the same time, the number of single LGBT* people has increased. A similar picture is observed in the Netherlands, where same-sex marriage has been legalized since 2001: only 20% of homosexual couples are “married,” compared to 80% of their heterosexual peers. In Finland, in 2018, only 210 women and 120 men married a partner of the same sex. Compared to 2017, interest in same-sex weddings has decreased. It turns out that despite the hysteria about same-sex marriages, the vast majority of homosexuals do not need them at all. How can this paradox be explained?
To begin with, same-sex relationships are unstable in nature. If in a natural relationship a man and a woman complement each other with their biological and psychological differences, then in same-sex relationships there is no harmony of complementarity, which is why homosexuals experience constant dissatisfactionexpressed in constant search. As noticed famous psychiatrist: “The worst heterosexual relationships are idyll compared to the best homosexuals”. So the opportunity to marry a partner of the same sex does not change the fact that such relationships do not work. In addition, the interest of partners in each other greatly depends on the degree of “unknown” between them, and since same-sex partners are physically and emotionally similar, the “unknown” for them remains less, which leads them to quickly overwork from each other.
An interesting explanation is given by two gay activists addressing the problems of the homosexual community in the book. After The Ball (p. 329):
“The average Joni Gay will tell you that he is looking for a“ hassle-free ”relationship in which the lover is not too involved, does not make demands, and gives him enough personal space. In reality, no space will be enough, because Joni is not looking for a lover, but for the fuck buddy henchman - a buddy for fucking, a kind of unpretentious household appliance. When an emotional attachment begins to appear in a relationship (which, in theory, should be the most reasonable reason for them), they cease to be comfortable, become “troublesome” and fall apart. Nevertheless, not everyone is looking for such a dry relationship. Some want a true mutual romance and even find it. What happens then? Sooner or later, the one-eyed snake raises its ugly head. There has never been a tradition of fidelity in the homosexual community. No matter how happy the homosexual is with his lover, he will eventually go looking for “adventure.” The rate of betrayal between “married” homosexuals is approaching 100% after some time. ”
That's how explains lack of monogamy among homosexual men former homosexual William Aaron:
“In gay life, fidelity is almost impossible. As part of the homosexual compulsion, apparently, is the homophile’s need to “absorb” the masculinity of his sexual partners, he must constantly be on the lookout for [new partners]. Consequently, the most successful homophilic “marriages” are those in which there is an agreement between the partners to have novels on the side while maintaining the appearance of constancy in their life structure. ”
The observations of insiders are fully confirmed by scientific work. Relationships for same-sex couples average one and half year, and long cohabitation, accompanied by ceaseless dramas and jealousy scenes, exist only due to “open relationships”, Or, as the homo-activist Andrew Salivan put it, at the expense of "A deep understanding of the need for extramarital discharge"... A study designed to prove the strength of same-sex unions actually found that in relationships between 1–5 years old, only 4.5% of homosexuals report monogamy, and none in relationships over 5 years old (McWhirter & Mattison, 1985). The average homosexual changes several dozen partners annually, and several hundred over the course of his life (Pollack, 1985). A study in San Francisco (Bell and Weinberg, 1978) showed that 43% of homosexuals had more than 500 sexual partners, and 28% had more than 1000. A study conducted 20 years later, already in the era of AIDS, did not find significant changes in behavior: a typical homosexual changes 101-500 partners during his life, about 15% had 501-1000 partners, and another 15% had more than 1000 (Van de Ven et al. Xnumx) According to Exploration 2013 years, about 70% of HIV infections among homosexuals occurs through a regular partner, since the vast majority of adultery occurs without the use of a condom.
Following early research, several recent ones have argued that stability rates among same-sex couples are similar to those of opposite-sex couples. IN article American and Canadian scientists provide new data on stability indicators using three large representative datasets from the United States and Canada. Confirming the earliest work, scientists have found that same-sex couples are more prone to breakup than opposite-sex couples. Moreover, the stability gap is greater for couples with children, the very group for which the concern for stability is most important.
British journalist and commentator Milo Yannopoulos describes the essence of gay relationships as follows:
“I always have one main friend who can provide me financially. Usually a doctor, a banker or something like that. And I also have a couple of friends for sex - personal trainers, athletes. I invite them, and that main boyfriend invites me ... The fact is, we have opportunities that you do not have. We have a very significant permissiveness that frees us from all formalities. That's why gay marriage is so ridiculous. My God, whoever wants to be with one person is awful. "
Joseph Schiambra, whose homosexual practices ended with a partial removal of his rectum and nearly cost him his life, пишет on his blog:
“Under the imperative of male biology, freed from the objections of wives and girlfriends, homosexual men are prone to numerous partnerships and restlessness, hence relatively low number same-sex marriage (9,6%), which after the decision of Obergefell increased only by 1,7%, as well as preservation of HIV infection among men in supposedly stable relationships. Relations between homosexual men are predominantly not monogamous, but negotiated open relationships. Nevertheless, an appearance is created that equates male homosexuality with heterosexuality or even lesbianism. ”
All this raises the question of the true need for the legalization of same-sex marriages, taking place under the guise of the struggle “for equal rights”, although marriage is not a right, but a cultural tradition. In fact, homosexuals already have the same rights as everyone else, since there is not a single law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation or prohibits homosexuals from anything that is allowed to heterosexuals. Discrimination is when one can and the other cannot, but in the Russian Federation, any homosexual man and homosexual woman can enter into a legal marriage between themselves (which is constantly) and even adopt children if they meet the standard requirements. If, guided by practical interests, two heterosexuals wish to register same-sex marriage with each other (for example, to facilitate obtaining a mortgage, prison visits, transfer of pensions, etc.), then they will be refused, like all other citizens, regardless of their sexual orientation, since such marriages are simply not provided for by the legislation of the Russian Federation and the sexual preferences of the parties concerned have absolutely nothing to do with it.
The article 14 SK RF clearly states who can not marry. There are persons already married, close relatives, adoptive parents and adopted children, as well as persons recognized by the court as legally incompetent as a result of mental illness. Homosexuals are not mentioned in this article. Article 12 of the RF IC does not prohibit a homosexual man from marrying a homosexual woman. Thus, this is not about eliminating discrimination and some kind of inequality of rights, but about getting special rights by homosexuals, in this case, the right to intervene in the country's legislation to circumvent the democratic process, and redefine the concept of marriage as a union of a man and a woman at its discretion .
According to the Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of November 16, 2006 No. 496-o: "marriage and the creation of a family are aimed at the birth and upbringing of children, which is impossible to implement in same-sex unions."
Why then do LGBT* activists so zealously insist on the legalization of same-sex marriages? No one forbids them to live together, and for cohabitants there have long been legal norms regulating property and inheritance issues no worse than for married spouses. Moreover, as statistics from countries that have legalized same-sex marriages show, the overwhelming majority of homosexuals do not need them at all.
For quite some time, defenders of family values have tried to point out that the real agenda is not at all to add a new category of "newlyweds" to the existing institution of marriage so that Petya can sign with Vasya, but to destroy existing moral norms and traditional cultural and family values. which includes the complete abolition of the very institution of marriage as such. This is not just a change in a couple of words in the law, it is a change in society. Where same-sex marriage has already been legalized, the struggle to legalize polygamy and incestuous relationships begins, and even the first notarized polygamous unions.
Prominent LGBT* activist Maria Gessen, former director of the Russian service of Radio Liberty, in a programme Australian corporation ABC Radio National fully confirmed these visionary fears, presenting the following revelation:
“The struggle for same-sex marriage usually includes a lie about what we are going to do with the institution of marriage when we get our way. We lie that the institution of marriage will remain unchanged - it will change, it must change. It is perfectly clear that it must cease to exist. I have three children who have five parents, more or less, and I do not understand why they cannot have five parents legally. "I would like to live in a legal system that is able to embody this reality, and I do not think that it is compatible with the institution of marriage."
The legal system “capable of embodying this reality” can be found only in “Brave New WorldAldous Huxley, or in two notorious cities in the Dead Sea region. Even through the completely rotten ancient Greece and Rome during the period of their complete decline, no one dared to encroach on the institution of marriage.
Hesse is by no means alone in voicing such plans. The day after the decision of the US Supreme Court to legalize same-sex marriage, political science professor Tamara Metz saidthat the next stage of the struggle is to eliminate the institution of marriage:
"What's next? - Abolish marriage, eliminate state involvement, abolish the legal category. Even while we celebrate victory, we must begin to insist on the abolition of marriage. The freedom, equality and health of our liberal-democratic system depend on this ”
On words Same-sex journalist Sally Cohn:
“The small box of traditional marriage is too small for our evolving ideas of love and partnership. Perhaps the next step is not yet another expansion of the narrow definition of marriage, but the complete elimination of the false difference between married families and other equally equal, but unrecognized partnerships. ”
On According to Sociology lecturer from Victoria Meagan Tyler University:
“Abandoning marriage as a whole will provide a faster path to progress, since only the end of marriage can lead to the dawn of equality for all.”
The (mostly unsuspecting) LGBT* community is simply being used as cannon fodder to advance sodomite ideologies and social change under the noble banner of rights and equality. As one commentator put it: “If in your city a gay parade - do not flatter yourself that the struggle for the rights of“ gays ”has begun. It’s someone who uncovered “gay rights” so that solve other problems».
At the same time, many homosexuals opposed the redefinition of marriage for various reasons, but the few who dared to talk about it openly were subjected to unprecedented persecution by activists, and their voice was muffled. According to one of them:
“Same-sex relationships are different from marriage, and pretending that this is not so is wrong. The point is not what is better or worse, but the recognition of differences and the celebration of diversity. To say that there is no difference is ridiculous. ”
As the participants in the video above correctly noted, same-sex “marriage” ignores the interests of the child, creates and reinforces distorted ideas about the relationship between the sexes. It is in the best interests of the child to be raised by his mother and father. This rule is confirmed by the many difficulties and emotional and psychological problems that many children who are orphans or brought up in an incomplete or foster family face. With the legalization of same-sex “marriages”, the unfavorable situation of such children turns into a “norm” fixed by law for each child brought up in same-sex partnerships. Such a child will always be deprived of his natural father or mother, instead of which he will be imposed on an emotional relationship with a stranger. Of course, this can also happen with the breakup of heterosexual families, but this is a clear sign that something went wrong and is not considered the norm.
Even before the Stonewall riots, “the pioneer of the fight for gay rights,” Carl Wittmann, in his revolutionary “Gay manifest"Issued the following warning:
“Gays should stop evaluating their self-esteem by how well they mimic heterosexual marriages. Same-sex marriages will have the same problems as heterosexual ones, with the only difference being that they will be a parody. The liberation of gays is that we ourselves will determine how and with whom we live, instead of evaluating our relationship with respect to the straight people and their values. ”
Reputable LGBT* activist Paula Ettelbrick agrees with this arguingthat marriage is contrary to the ideals of "gay culture" and the fundamental goals of the gay movement:
“Being queer means expanding the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and along the way, transforming the very foundation of society ... As a lesbian, I am fundamentally different from women who are not lesbians, but defending the right to legal marriage we have to argue that we are similar to heterosexual couples, share the same goals and objectives, and commit to building our lives in a similar way ... Marriage will not free us as lesbians and gays. In fact, it will restrict us, make us more invisible, force us to assimilate into the mainstream and undermine the goals of the gay liberation movement ... It is necessary to focus on our main goals - to provide real alternatives to marriage and to radically change society's views on the family.
Frustrated “Marriage Equality” Activist claimsthat polls according to which the majority of citizens support "same-sex marriage" are based on fake data. He questions the "conservative" need for marriage in general and calls for "celebrating differences, not conformism":
“Some of the tactics used by the organized lobby for same-sex marriage include misrepresenting facts, using manipulative arguments, practicing and stifling rivals through ridicule and pathologization. One of the most insistent arguments is the demand for equality, although this has very little connection with the righteous demand for “equality for all.” It must be admitted that it is a matter of politics, and not of what is right or fair ... Supporters of same-sex marriages claim that marriage is a “right”. However, marriage is a cultural tradition, not a law. They argue that the restriction on marriage is comparable to the historical oppression faced by blacks or women deprived of voting rights. But biological data, such as a person’s gender or skin color, are not identical to how a person chooses to show his sexuality. ”
According to the above mentioned writer Andrew Salivan:
“There is something sinister about some gay conservatives trying to inculcate homosexuals and lesbians with a meek acceptance of the suffocating model of heterosexual normativity. In truth, homosexuals are not quite normal, and to squeeze their diverse and complex lives into a single moralistic model means to lose sight of what is so significant and amazing in their otherness. ”
The Queer Dissident Collective, calling itself “Against Equality,” criticizes the dominant concepts of gay activism and urges not to participate in such “conservative heteronormative institutions” as marriage:
“Why should married people enjoy privileges denied to those who are single or choose other types of relationships? Why should we reconstruct our erotic and emotional life, only to fit into the framework and fetters of the hetero-world? No, seriously, why should we stoop to the level of straights? The struggle for marriage equality in the United States now overshadows all the other problems that the queer community is facing, and this is a farce ... And we should not be equated with heterosupremacists and religious fanatics. Finally, we stand for the destruction of the centrality of marriage and the nuclear family. The whole mentality of "either you with us or with terrorists", which permeates the camp of supporters of same-sex marriage, is very similar to Bush Jr. and leaves little room for real critical thinking. "
Homosexual journalist and radio host Michelangelo Signoril proposed activists advocating for and against such a compromise:
“Fight for same-sex marriages and their advantages, and then, after their legalization, completely redefine the institution of marriage. Demand the right to same-sex marriage not to adhere to the moral codes of society, but to expose the myth and radically change the archaic institution. The legalization of same-sex marriage makes it possible to completely change the definition of family in American culture. This is an ultimatum tool with which you can repeal all laws on homosexuality, introduce educational programs on homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, achieve significant changes in the way society looks at us and how they treat us. ”
As practice shows, what begins with timid statements about the need to legalize same-sex “marriages” for the sake of “justice and equality” ends with aggressive attacks against the majority, which is trying to defend traditional values.