Replies

One had to be amused by Barney Frank’s on fox News Sunday. Here is an excerpt

WALLACE: All right. Congressman Frank, let me turn it around to you. If you're going to argue for the right of gays to marry, why stop there? Why not, say, polygamy or any other personal choice?

FRANK: Because society has, I think, a right to make certain decisions. They ought to make them fairly.

Deciding that a relationship between two people promotes stability, is likely to help society, is a rational decision. And two versus three is a very clear thing. You have a three-way situation, the likelihood of dissension, et cetera, is greater.

As to the traditional family, I think it's a wonderful thing, and same-sex marriage will in no way alter it. I think we ought to be very clear.

What's happened in Massachusetts is this: To the overwhelming majority of heterosexual Massachusetts citizens, marriage will not change in any way, shape or form. The legal benefits, the legal obligations, most importantly the emotional sense — it doesn't change.

This is not going to destroy the intact family. We don't have heterosexual couples who are now going to say, "Hey, I can go marry a guy," and leave his wife. I mean, it is a separate issue.

And I think it is fair for society to say relationships between two people, we want give those legal sanction, because we think that mutuality can produce stability.
***

Where do I begin pointing out the inconsistencies and sheer stupidity contained in this exchange? (More importantly, why did not Chris Wallace or Senator Cornyn do so?)

First, he explains that society must make its decisions fairly. I certainly agree. However, does a decision fair arise from the process of democratic debate or the decree of unelected judges? When asked to vote, the people have consistently condemned "gay marriage?"

Then he explains that "gay marriage" is different from polygamy because the latter involves three or more people. Well, most people feel the same disapproval he expresses for polygamy when they think of "gay marriage." If Frank’s disapproval of polygamy justifies a ban on that odious institution, why does he deny the majority of Americans the right to disapprove of homosexuality? Personally, the thought of a world in which society can condemn only what Barney Frank finds perverse frightens me.

As to the idea that polygamy is different because of its inherent instability, Frank ignores the rampant promiscuity of homosexuals. This is an odd omission, considering that one of his lovers ran a ring of gay prostitutes from the Congressman's home.

Then he claims that heterosexual marriages will not end because society recognizes "gay marriage." This assertion ignores the case of Gene Robinson. An Episcopal cleric, Robinson abandoned his family to live with his gay lover. This occurred despite society's, and his religion's, condemnation of homosexuality. If society endorses homosexuality, as "gay marriage" inevitably does, then those with marginal marriages might be tempted to follow Robinson's example. We cannot attempt to divorce marriage from morality and hope to reap anything but chaos.

Finally, Frank claims that "we think that mutuality can produce stability." So does this mean that he will allow incest? Will fathers be allowed to marry sons? Why not? These "mutual" relationships have as much claim to "stability" as any other homosexuals. Again, we are left in a world in which only Barney Frank’s good taste protects us.

In short, the case for gay marriage is that this influential pressure group should be allowed its perversion. If we give in here, there is no intellectually consistent argument to protect society when the next group of deviants begins its campaign for society's endorsement.

In short, the case for gay marriage is that this influential pressure group should be allowed its perversion.

Your post was excellent, but perhaps we should clarify this part: "allowed its perversion IN THE PUBLIC EYE."

I personally don't care what two men decide to do in their bedroom. But if they want me to support that relationship, or to support the subjecting of my own or any other children to their subversive indoctrination, they can forget about it.

barney frank is trying to confuse the issue with feeeeelings. Homosexual marriage is only about the person who pops an orgasm with you.

They do not want standards. Look at the different consituncies. Nascar Dads like a competition where there are difinitive winners and loosers based on standards. Soccer moms have a game where it is iffy if they even keep score based on the possibility of hurting feelings.