Posted on 05/21/2004 8:07:05 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback
Recently, a congressman whom I have known for many years and whom I greatly respect asked me about objections he’s hearing to the Federal Marriage Amendment. He said, “I don’t have a good answer when people say to me, ‘Isn’t it better for kids to be raised by two fathers or two mothers than single parents raising kids.’ Why is gay ‘marriage’ bad for kids?”
My response to him was that if two were better than one, why wouldn’t four be better than two? If it’s just a matter of the number of people in the home, then polyamory is best, or maybe we should legalize polygamy. He understood that, but he kept returning to the question of the single parent. How does the single parent model the proper role for raising children?
I think single parents—beginning with my own daughter—deserve special medals for valor. They do an heroic job under adverse circumstances. But in most cases, children know their other birth parent, and usually that parent is there when they need them. That is, except for instances of death or the most egregious desertion, children know both parents. That means children have male and female parental role models—as imperfect as they may be.
This is vitally important in understanding what’s going on with the same-sex “marriage” debate. In this whole issue our opponents are basically denying the differences between men and women and, thus, the need for children to have one of each in a family. As Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family notes, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts declared that traditional marriage, as codified in the law of the state, “identified persons by a single trait [that is, the ability to reproduce sexually] and then denies” those without that ability equal treatment under the law.
Stantongoes on to write: “The court would have us believe your wife’s only essential value as a woman is her womb or your husband’s, his seed. That, they say, is the only unique thing we, as gendered-beings, bring to the table. Everything else, the court would have us believe, is ‘bridgeable.’”
The court’s reasoning is foolish. When it comes to the family, there is a clear role for a woman and a clear role for a man. Is it possible that members of the court haven’t noticed the differences between “Mars” and “Venus”? Both roles are essential to the proper functioning of many aspects of our society—certainly for the character formation and nurturing of kids.
In considering the meaning of marriage in the public square, our first consideration ought to be what is good for society as a whole. We are fighting to preserve an institution that is required for procreation and is the best possible environment for raising children. That’s been proven. Marriage is where the future comes from.
Maybe it’s not always ideally fulfilled, like in single-parent families, but that doesn’t mean we should alter the law to reflect the lowest common denominator.
This debate is about what is best for America’s children and what it means to have a just society. And the evidence over the centuries is on the side of traditional marriage, which is why on Monday President Bush gave such a ringing endorsement to the marriage amendment. But the critical thing here, friends, is to learn how to make this case well so our secular neighbors understand it. There’s nothing less than the survival of our civilization at stake.
Yep, the homosexuals knock on Lot's door and demand the "dignity" to treat every person as if they're nothing more than a penis or a uterus. How tolerant and enlightened.
If anyone wants on or off my BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
Every child needs a father and a mother.
That's the purpose of marriage.
bump
| What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda |
|
|
| Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1) |
|
|
| Myth and Reality about Homosexuality--Sexual Orientation Section, Guide to Family Issues" |
Homosexual Agenda Ping - More on "Gay Parenting".
More proof that liberals/leftists are (criminally) insane. A quick summary of the article - when moral absolutes are rejected, then EVERYTHING that is true has to be rejected. All right and wrong, every natural law, must be ultimately be rejected.
Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
So, since I cannot have children, I shouldn't be allowed to get married? How about couples who decide they don't want children ( I know a few ) ?
You should be allowed to be married. You and your spouse can serve as a role model for younger couples.
I think there is a natural right to marriage that needs no justification.
Some people are told they are sterile, but later on they have children anyway.
If you get married and do not have children, you are still to act as if you did have children.
You ask a simplistic, agenda-laden question. So I'll ask of you, "In order to gain societal recognition for your sexual proclivities, is it proper to destroy one of the most vital institutions of civilization? Why is your chosen sexual expression (which has been defined as degenerated from normal up until recent memory) representing less than 2% of the populace to be afforded greater value than the other 98% such that the instituions of civilization will be destroyed and rebuilt to accommodate your ilk?"
I'll second his question, and up it one.
Why should someone who, likely to due to being molested as a child or adolescent, or seduced by an older homosexual, or poor parenting or a broken home, is currently indulging in same sex sodomy, have the entire moral fabric of society rent asunder in order to play pretend at marriage?
When the majority of homosexuals have no interest in "marriage", are not currenty or planning to be monogamous, and may not even remain "homosexuals" for the rest of their lives?
These questions are not rhetorical, BTW.
I am trying to do just that - use secular arguments in rational debates arguing against gay marriage.
LJ... when you identify a homosexual as someone who, likely due to being molested as a child or adolescent, or seduced by an older homosexual, or poor parenting or a broken home, [is currently indulging in same sex sodomy], I don't even agree with you. What do you think fence-sitters are going to think of your premise?
From what I've read in scripter's Categorical index, a large percentage of homosexuals come from those backgrounds. Homosexuality is not innate, not genetic, and not inborn. A far larger percentage of self-idnetified homosexuals haave been molested and/or seduced as children or adolescents, have poor relationships with one or more parents, or are from what used to be called a broken home.
Add to that the all-pervasive pro-homosexual indoctrination and propaganda that we see everywhere, especially in schools, and voila!
I think it's absolutely essential that non-religious argments be made in support of traditional families, marriage, and sexual behavior. But that isn't enough. It is also important for people to understand that religiously based morality is NOT sectarian, and the basic traditional rules governing sexual behavior are virtually the same in every monotheist religion and even ones that aren't, such as Buddhism.
Both sides need to be broadcast. I totally agree that merely reciting Bible verses prohibiting same sex acts is not going to change anyone's mind, although people who do believe in the Bible may be helped from temptation by such reading. But the general understanding that God does exist, He has set down rules for human behavior, and oddly enough such rules are essentially the same in every religion, is very important for people to know.
The vast store of information available on FR - linked to on almost every thread about the "gay" agenda by EdReform or scripter, has incredible facts and figures about the dangers of homosexuality and the tragedy of "normalizing" such behavior. People such as yourself can delve into that storehouse and find arguments about health, shortened lifespan, accompanying high rates of alcohol and drug abuse, mental illness, wildly high rates of promiscuity, and the terrible push to indoctrinate children all across America into accepting homosexuality as normal and natural.
The ammunition is limitless.
Digging deeper into this perversion issue, it becomes evident to a sane reader that the degenerates want to degenerate the institution of marriage, which in turn will lead to more screwed up kids and adult homosexuals, which is a twisted way the degenerates 'validate' their existence rather than facing their perversions and seeking help for their malady.
The further sexual degenerates try to push society down their road of degenerating the institutions of civilization, the greater will be the aversion factor when the 'normalcy' of their perversions are revealed for the sick and twisted obsessions they are. Homosexuals are twisted people, sexually. Their chosen (emphasis upon CHOSEN) sexual proclivities (such as fisting and sodomy involving the excretion organs), if advertised for the typical practices that they are with degenerates, would raise the revulsion factor, so the homo-laden media outlets avoid too much publicity of these perversions.
One need only talk with Gastroenterologists and Proctologist who have to try and deal with the maladies caused by the perversions, to realize just how sick these homosexuals are. As a pharmaceutical rep, I had too many occasions to speak with such physicians. Sexual perversion adds a large weight to the medical expenses of this nation. Allowing the degenerates to marry and force medical coverages to be extended to their 'spouses' will pose a huge burden on the medical costs to the rest of the not abnormal people in the insurance and formulary programs. [And let's be honest, the divorce rate among heterosexuals is bad enough. Add the gross promiscuity of homosexuals to the mix and it is no stretch to see homosexuality corroding the institution of marriage even further, with the courts and social services programs left to pick up the diseased pieces.]
You want non-religious reasons for opposing degeneracy entering into the institution of marriage, forced by socialist societal engineering courts? Costs and increased health damage are two good points to follow, as well as the influence of degenerates upon the formative years of children. (And these points apply to heterosexual degeneracy impacting the development and health of children, as well. Sexual perversion is an exploding disease in America! Lending legitimacy to one branch does nothing to work toward cleaning up America, only tossing our society further in the sexual gutters.)
I think it's absolutely essential that non-religious argments be made in support of traditional families, marriage, and sexual behavior. But that isn't enough. It is also important for people to understand that religiously based morality is NOT sectarian, and the basic traditional rules governing sexual behavior are virtually the same in every monotheist religion and even ones that aren't, such as Buddhism.
That is true. However, I advocate not wielding this as a big hammer to simply condemn homosexual behavior as utterly unacceptable. Here's a compromise position. Assure nice people in the political/social middle that believers in these strict religious rules won't "go around beating up fags". (Quote unquote). But, it must and will continue to be acceptable for them to use their free speech rights to condemn homosexuality in accordance with their spiritual teachings. Noone is hurt by these words.
I totally agree that merely reciting Bible verses prohibiting same sex acts is not going to change anyone's mind although people who do believe in the Bible may be helped from temptation by such reading. But the general understanding that God does exist, He has set down rules for human behavior, and oddly enough such rules are essentially the same in every religion, is very important for people to know.
I disagree with your choice of emphasis. The reason that homosexuality is condemned by God, (the "softer" version goes) is to add moral clarity; i.e. moral meaning to the sexual act of men and women in marriage. It is mothers' and fathers' moral duty to stay together, forsake all others, and raise their children to love God. I recommend deemphasizing the sin aspect of men or women enjoying same-sex, uh, sex.
The vast store of information available on FR - linked to on almost every thread about the "gay" agenda by EdReform or scripter, has incredible facts and figures about the dangers of homosexuality and the tragedy of "normalizing" such behavior. People such as yourself can delve into that storehouse and find arguments about health, shortened lifespan, accompanying high rates of alcohol and drug abuse, mental illness, wildly high rates of promiscuity, and the terrible push to indoctrinate children all across America into accepting homosexuality as normal and natural.
1. dangers of homosexuality - those middletarians, those South Park Republicans, are utterly committed, now and forever, to the doctrine of live and let live. I subscribe to it myself. However, I am on record strongly condemning how the gay activist community killed thousands of their own people by not fostering epidemiological practices to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS. We do not want to normalize that kind of unacceptably reckless approach to life.
2. indoctrination - there are some well-meaning people who think kids should be taught that homosexuality is acceptable. Their desire is to increase tolerance and to help the self-esteem of homosexuals. Say "Thanks, but no thanks." It is not the job of any educators to bring this message. Besides, that enterprise always ends up clashing with what Christians are teaching their children. Be assured, though, just the same, that we will not tolerate bullies beating up suspected homosexual kids.
Even though you know that Christian communities are morally opposed to persecution of any people, not just homosexuals, I know for a fact that the somewhat liberal average person is fearful of just that. It might not hurt to reassure them of that in subtle ways when debating these matters. Is it clear that I do not reject all the information in scripter's index? But I do think some of it is wrong.
Thanks again.
I'll get back to you tomorrow, I want to continue this discussion!
Colson says that the reason for marriage is to raise kids. You believe this can't be true because it would exclude couples who are infertile or simply don't want children.
Some people believe that marriage is solely for the expression of love. But shouldn't they believe this can't be true because it would exclude people who don't really love each other? They get married sometimes, too.
Some people believe that marriage is mainly for sexual monogamy. But shouldn't they believe this can't be true because it would exclude people who can't have sex--quadraplegics, victims of castration, etc.? They get married sometimes, too.
Some people see marriage as a vehicle for financial stability. But shouldn't they believe this can't be true because it would exclude people who've had a bankruptcy or lots of overdrafts? They get married sometimes, too.
So...
1. Your point is absurd on its face.
2. It has nothing to do with the author's point, which is that same-sex parenthood is not equivalent to heterosexual parenthood, and that comparing the two reduces fathers to a penis and mothers to a vagina.
3. At its core, this isn't about infertility or gay sex or getting benefits. It is about whether we will have government by and for the people, or government by four people, namely, four oligarchs on the Massachusetts Supreme Court.
Now you have me curious. LJ identified a common theme found in homosexuals and you said you disagreed. Could you clarify what it is (specifically) with which you disagree?
In post 15 regarding the categorical index you said:
I do think some of it is wrong.I'm more than willing to read any information that discredits anything in the database. It really is the truth I'm after - I don't have an anti-homosexual agenda. In fact I'm all for helping homosexuals with what I believe is the truth, and that is they can leave the lifestyle.
I went on to compare myself to so-called fence-sitters, implying that since I disagreed, they were even more likely to disagree.
Specifically, I do not believe the common root causes of homosexuality are:
1. being molested as a child or adolescent
2. being seduced by an older homosexual
3. poor parenting
4. broken home
These four factors certainly make a person more likely to act out and get in trouble. But, from what I've read and observed, there are homosexual males. They are types, they grow up that way in nice homes with no molestations or seductions.
I don't know anybody who denies the above, but LJ used the likely scenario, and a scenario I believe is supported by the facts.
I think I've pointed you to this article before and you very well could have read it. And if I'm being redundant I'm sorry. But this article summarizes what I've read on this subject, and I've read a lot.
How Might Homosexuality Develop? Putting the Pieces TogetherWhat do you think is the major factor in determining homosexuality?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.