Posted on 06/07/2009 3:04:21 PM PDT by Maelstorm
Why not legalize same-sex marriage? Who could it possibly hurt? Children and the rest of society. That’s the conclusion of David Blankenhorn, who is anything but an anti-gay “bigot.” He is a life-long, pro-gay, liberal democrat who disagrees with the Bible’s prohibitions against homosexual behavior. Despite this, Blankenhorn makes a powerful case against Same-Sex marriage in his book, The Future of Marriage. He writes, “Across history and cultures . . . marriage’s single most fundamental idea is that every child needs a mother and a father. Changing marriage to accommodate same-sex couples would nullify this principle in culture and in law.” How so? The law is a great teacher, and same sex marriage will teach future generations that marriage is not about children but about coupling. When marriage becomes nothing more than coupling, fewer people will get married to have children. So what? People will still have children, of course, but many more of them out-of wedlock. That’s a disaster for everyone. Children will be hurt because illegitimate parents (there are no illegitimate children) often never form a family, and those that “shack up” break up at a rate two to three times that of married parents. Society will be hurt because illegitimacy starts a chain of negative effects that fall like dominoes—illegitimacy leads to poverty, crime, and higher welfare costs which lead to bigger government, higher taxes, and a slower economy.
Are these just the hysterical cries of an alarmist? No. We can see the connection between same-sex marriage and illegitimacy in Scandinavian countries. Norway, for example, has had de-facto same-sex marriage since the early nineties. In Nordland, the most liberal county of Norway, where they fly “gay” rainbow flags over their churches, out-of-wedlock births have soared—more than 80 percent of women giving birth for the first time...
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
For later read.
Supporting homosexual marriage and adoption is also part of the Libertarian Party Platform in America.
When it comes to massive illegitimacy, it’s probably more relevant that Scandinavia has very generous social welfare, making out-of-wedlock pregnancy about as economically viable as pregnancy within marriage. What you subsidize you get more of.
“When it comes to massive illegitimacy, it’s probably more relevant that Scandinavia has very generous social welfare, making out-of-wedlock pregnancy about as economically viable as pregnancy within marriage. What you subsidize you get more of.”
That’s the whole point. Ultimately, the Left wants marriage either abolished or rendered so absolutely meaningless that the institution of the natural family will be replaced with the government and everyone will be absolutely dependent on the state for everything a la Jean Jacques Rousseau.
I have relatives in Norway (not in the most liberal county), and you get a year off when you have a baby, I think it’s paid, but who cares, all Norwegians (family) get the equivalet of $23,000 per year as their oil profit.
"Blankenhorn is amazed how indifferent homosexual activists are about the negative effects of same-sex marriage on children. Many of them, he documents, say that marriage isn’t about children.Well said, and that's my point as well when making the case against same-sex marriage. As I said before, the basis of marriage is to establish cultural meaning and moral values, giving stability to a man and a woman's inherently pro-creative relationship, fostering a solid environment for raising children, and guarding society's interest in the cultivation of those relationships."Well, if marriage isn’t about children, what institution is about children? And if we’re going to redefine marriage into mere coupling, then why should the state endorse same-sex marriage at all?
"Contrary to what homosexual activists assume, the state doesn’t endorse marriage because people have feelings for one another. The state endorses marriage primarily because of what marriage does for children and in turn society. Society gets no benefit by redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships, only harm as the connection to illegitimacy shows. But the very future of children and a civilized society depends on stable marriages between men and women. That’s why, regardless of what you think about homosexuality, the two types of relationships should never be legally equated."
I usually ask people if they believe in evolution (what the hell, they already think I’m a religious nutjob by this point). And then ask, isn’t there some reason why 1 man and 1 woman has evolved into the most dominant and most stable form of marriage in the world?
Artificially induced sterility, or "birth control," was the crucial first step. Abortion and homosexual "marriage" (somewhat) logically follow.
Much of this was predicted in the prophetic encyclical from 1968, Humanae Vitae.
Yup. This is the Marxist "long march through the institutions." Look at the colleges, the media, and the seminaries, and see how successful they've been.
I wonder why the Greens never complained about the off-shore drilling in Norway. Guess you gotta keep those welfare payments going?
Their official website also provides a link to the ACLU website, as a "helpful" organization.
“He is a life-long, pro-gay, liberal democrat who disagrees with the Bible’s prohibitions against homosexual behavior”
Mighty tough to win an argument with God, there, Mr. Blankenhorn...
You don’t hear too much about why homosexual marriage is good for society, or is good social policy. Mostly you hear how it’s discriminatory not to allow same-sex marriage, without the reasoning as to why it’s beneficial.
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.