Four Tiers of Failure: How the LGBT Lobby Dominates

http://www.americanthinker.com/ ^ | March 2013 | By Robert Oscar Lopez

[Maelstorm]

I never knew the extent of a lobby's power until fate called me to speak on behalf of children's rights. Now, six months after having come forward with a logical, secular argument against same-sex parenting based on experience, broad research, and international law, I have been met with vicious attacks and something far worse than viciousness: a massive nationwide cold shoulder. Both left and right are allied in a complete blackout of dissent from LGBT orthodoxy.

Doug Mainwaring is a gay father in Maryland; he and I jointly signed an amicus brief in support of Proposition 8. Over the last six weeks, fifteen news organizations have rejected our editorials and refused to interview us; many, like Salon and the New Republic, gave major coverage to the pro-gay marriage side at the same time that they rejected our correspondence. Some of these publications are conservative, though I will strive not to burn bridges by naming them here.

I am, moreover, the only person reared by a same-sex couple who signed an amicus brief in support of Proposition 8. Nonetheless, the Washington Post feels that it is newsworthy to report on two gay men holding a bake sale to raise money to pay a surrogate mother, while deeming the riposte from Mainwaring and me utterly insignificant.

Mainwaring and I support civil unions. We do not oppose homosexuality or object to gays living together. We support traditional marriage for the simple reason that a child's right to a father and mother is a fundamental consideration recognized by international law. Why has every paper from the New York Times to the Chicago Tribune pretended that our position simply doesn't exist?

There are four levels that have failed in the United States, and we must take these four tiers very seriously.

[upchuck]

I don’t believe all gays admit to such in surveys and I believe the numbers have been growing.

Did you go look at the survey? It was large and pretty comprehensive. From same:

These results are based on responses to the question, "Do you, personally, identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender?" included in 121,290 Gallup Daily tracking interviews conducted between June 1 and Sept. 30, 2012. This is the largest single study of the distribution of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) population in the U.S. on record. By comparison, the General Social Survey, a project of NORC at the University of Chicago, asked a sexual orientation question in its 2008 and 2010 survey of about 2,000 adults in each year. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' National Survey of Family Growth asked a sexual orientation question of about 12,000 young adults aged 18 to 44 in 2002 and of more than 20,000 adults in its 2006-2010 survey. The 3.4% figure is similar to a 3.8% estimate made by one of the authors of this study (Gates), averaging a group of smaller U.S. surveys conducted from 2004 to 2008.

This survey was about six times larger than other surveys.

I can understand why you feel the number is growing. Sometimes it seems that way to me also. But part of that is perception. The leftard press is running 90 miles an hour with this right now.

[nascarnation]

It’s all based on popular media.

If someone from Mars watched MSM television shows, he would likely infer that the US is 30% black and 30% gay.

[Theodore R.]

Now Caligula maybe by some other name sounds just like what the American people may want in 2016.

[upchuck]

Amen. Which is why it seems like there's more queers than there really are.

[9YearLurker]

As I said, I believe the numbers are greater than those who self-identify in a telephone poll.

And the numbers in upper-middle-class strata in the Northeast, at least, among the youth, are definitely greater than that. I really think it matters by where in the country you live and somewhat by social group as well.

[Alberta's Child]

You're right about all of that. I was referring to the Catholic Church in the United States from the latter decades of the 19th century up through the 1950s.

Vatican II marked the end of the Catholic Church as a "counter-cultural" institution. In fact, the Catholic Church became very much a "cultural" institution of the world from that point onward -- which basically means it isn't much of anything at this point.

[HomeAtLast]

We support traditional marriage for the simple reason that a child's right to a father and mother is a fundamental consideration recognized by international law.

Don't know where in our Constitution we are bound by considerations in international "law." Our government was instituted to secure God-given rights. If a child has a right to two parents, one male and one female, who provides it?

The author's claim to a solid and secular argument is not upheld by this "simple reason."

And what exactly is meant by a "fundamental consideration?" Or a recognized consideration?

How does it square with the so-called rights of homosexual couples to adopt children -- or for that matter, single individuals?

Stand on basic Judeo-Christian principles, rather than on considerations in international "law" to which no nation is bound anyway.

[supercat]

I wish conservatives would stop being distracted by religious issues surrounding marriage, and recognize that:

1. The concept of heterosexual lifetime-mating pairs raising their young certainly predates religion and government, and may well predate all of humanity as well (such behavior has been observed in many animal species, in contexts where they cannot plausibly be imitating mankind). A family unit containing a man, one or more wives, and their offspring, is a type of social structure which exists and has existed in nearly all human societies throughout history. Such a group is fundamentally different from any possible grouping which does not contain exactly one male and at least one female; recognition of such differences cannot simply be a consequence of religious bigotry, since such recognition predates religion.

2. A mother giving her child up for adoption has the right to refuse any prospective adoptive couple for any reason whatsoever that she sees fit, or instruct proxies to do so on her behalf; that would remain true even if the sole reason for her refusal was a desire to have her child raised by a (female) mother and a (male) father who were married to each other. I doubt those who are really pushing for "gay marriage" would agree with the latter point; I suspect the goal is to forbid "discrimination" with regard to such issues.
3. Individuals, institutions, or companies who wish to voluntarily bestow favors upon married couples have the right to restrict their blessings to those couples they see fit to receive them, or refuse them as they see fit. Such right extends even in cases where the sole reason for refusal is the lack of one male and one female. Again, I doubt those pushing for "gay marriage" would agree, since their goal is to outlaw such "discrimination".

Gay marriage isn't about freedom for gay people; it's about giving them the power to prevent others from voluntarily recognizing historically-styled marriages without accepting their partnership.