Five Myths about Same Sex Marriage

Townhall.com ^ | March 9, 2010 | Janice Shaw Crouse

[Kaslin]

March 9, 2010, is the first day that same-sex couples in District of Columbia (D.C.) will be able to have legal marriage ceremonies. More than 100 couples — some coming from nearby states — have licenses for ceremonies. So-called same-sex “marriages” are legal in five other states — Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont — where the words “bride and groom” are replaced with the names of the individuals, who are each called “spouse” or “Person A” and “Person B.”

Those who oppose same-sex “marriage” are called by derogatory labels: bigot, narrow-minded, hate-filled among the nicest. Such name-calling obscures the very real problems associated with watering down and denigrating traditional marriage.

Let’s begin with the basic argument that people are “born gay.” Apparently, activists are operating under the assumption that if they say this long enough, people will believe it. Yet the science is not there to substantiate their oft-stated premise that homosexuality is genetic and is immutable. The studies that purport to support the idea have not been replicated; instead, they have been repudiated or considered inconclusive. The generally accepted theory is that some people may be predisposed to emotional vulnerabilities that can be exacerbated by external factors, such as parental approval, social acceptance and gender affirmation. Indeed, a growing number of individuals have chosen to reject the homosexual lifestyle. In addition, there is an acknowledgement, even among homosexuals, that persons can “choose” their sexuality (be bisexual or not).

Let’s look at five other myths associated with same-sex “marriage.”

Myth #1: Having same-sex couples celebrate their love does nothing to harm anybody else’s marriage or damage the institution of marriage.

The argument that “what I do is my business and doesn’t hurt anybody but me” is an old argument that has been refuted in numerous ways. The institution of marriage has existed throughout history in almost every culture to protect women and children. Marriage is already under attack from a promiscuous, me-centered culture that derides any male who “gives up” his rights for altruistic reasons and labels him a “powerless wimp.” Likewise, women who “hold out” for marriage are called “prudes” and worse. These cultural changes are bad enough. Society opens the floodgates of cultural destruction if marriage becomes meaningless. Counterfeits always devalue the real thing. Counterfeit marriage will lead to “anything goes” unions. There will be no legal reason to deny anyone the umbrella of “marriage.” The age of those seeking unions will be irrelevant; their blood relationship won’t matter; the number of partners seeking the ceremony or any other characteristic will become meaningless. The whole institution of marriage will be rendered irrelevant. Just look at Scandinavia: they legalized “same-sex marriage;” now, cohabitation rather than marriage is the prevalent household arrangement.

Myth #2: Same-sex “marriage” is an “equal rights” issue.

Activists argue that same-sex “marriage” is like the civil rights issue of racial equality, that homosexuals “deserve” the right to “marry” and have the same benefits and protections of marriage that heterosexuals enjoy. Any denial of that “right,” they say, violates their “equal rights.” The reality is that the same-sex “marriage” effort is more about getting society’s approval for behavior; it is not about benefits or protections. All American citizens have the right to marriage, and all the protections that homosexuals seek are already embedded in American law. Anyone can legally designate beneficiaries and establish who can or cannot visit them in hospitals. Clearly the push is for approval, mainstreaming an aberrant set of values and condoning certain behaviors; it is not for establishing “rights” that already exist. Marriage is more than a “legal” institution; it is an institution supported by society as a haven for children, the foundation of the family, and the well-spring of civility and national strength. The homosexual activists are seeking a special right, one that denies the human truth that male and female are designed to be “one” and are created as the natural means for propagating the human race.

Myth #3: Any group of people — including homosexual couples — can contribute to the well-being of children and form a productive unit of society.

Conveying marital status to any group of people gives them societal affirmation and establishes them as an essential element of society when the research indicates they are not capable of performing those functions. Social science research sends a clear and unequivocal message: the married couple, mom-and-dad family is best for children — not just good, but best in comparison to any other household arrangement. Other households (headed by anyone other than the married mother and father) are far inferior and damaging to children’s well-being and their futures. Already our children are at risk from the increase in cohabitation and the decline in marriage. If we add same-sex “marriage” into the mix, we are disregarding the best interests of our nation’s children. American children are at risk in carefully-documented ways when they are raised in any household but a married mom-and-dad family: They make worse grades, are likely to drop out of school, more prone to getting into trouble, have greater health problems, are more likely to experiment with drugs and/or alcohol, and will likely engage in early sexual activity and thus be more likely to contract a sexually-transmitted disease, have an abortion(s) and/or teen pregnancy.

Myth #4: Same-sex “marriage” is a matter of freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

This is one of the more insidious myths related to “same-sex marriage.” There is no way to ignore the fact that same-sex “marriage” violates the deeply-held beliefs of millions of Christian, Jewish and Muslim citizens whose opposition to same-sex “marriage” is founded on central tenets of their faith. Knowing this, the homosexual activists are working through indoctrination programs for the nation’s children. Our public schools are becoming the means through which activists plan to change public opinion and the rule of law. Curriculum programs are instilling the idea that there is no legitimate opposition to homosexuality; instead, any opposition is bigoted and hate-filled. Laws are being changed to force innkeepers, businesses and even our social services to celebrate homosexuality.

More to the point, same-sex “marriage” is already used as a bludgeon to destroy the religious liberties and drive out Christian social services. One recent example: Massachusetts and the District of Columbia have both driven out Catholic adoption agencies, whose moral stand is unacceptable to the homosexual agenda. The radical politics of homosexuality requires orphans to remain without parents at all rather than to allow a Christian agency the religious liberty to find them a home.

Myth #5: “Same-Sex Marriages” are just like heterosexual marriages.

This last myth is probably the one furthest from the truth. In actuality, homosexual unions have a very short lifespan; many of the same-sex “marriages” in Massachusetts are already being dissolved. Further, the health risks associated with homosexual practice are very real and very much in evidence in the emergency rooms of hospitals. There is no denying: Homosexual sex is dangerous and destructive to the human body. Both HIV and HPV are epidemic among homosexual men. Domestic violence is a common problem — twice as prevalent among homosexual couples as in heterosexual ones. Indeed, legally creating a union does not enable two men or two women to become “one flesh,” nor does a legal ceremony give the union sanctity. Instead, the ceremony creates a sham that will devalue all marriages. The government establishes “standards” for measurement and value; to declare a sham union equal to marriage would devalue the “standard” and render all unions worthless and irrelevant. If the U.S. government establishes same-sex “marriages” under law, it will be redefining marriage — completely and irrevocably. Such a powerful statement will contradict the prevailing social science research: There is a big difference between 1) a family created and sanctioned by society when a man and a woman commit to each other and thus form a cohesive unit, and 2) a couple or group of people who live together to form a household in defiance of the prevailing moral codes to render meaningless an institution that has been the bulwark of the family and society throughout history.

Conclusion: The bottom line is that this social issue is a defining moment for mankind, not just this nation. What the homosexual activists are seeking is not a minor shift in the law, but a radical change in the fundamental institution that forms the basis for society. Will we protect marriage as the primary institution protecting women and children, or will we surrender to the forces that claim no one has obligations to others and that adults can do anything they want in their sexual lives regardless of how those actions affect society, especially children, and undermine the public good?

[jessduntno]

“What can we do as a society to make families more stable and raise children right?”.

Do what my parents did...what I did...what my three married sons did...work it out...go to Church...play three sports and study hard...that stuff.

[little jeremiah]

Well said.

[BykrBayb]

Do your friends live in inner-city Philadelphia?

I live near Philadelphia. I have friends and family who live in various parts of Philly. Center City, South Philly, etc.

Does that make me qualified to state that homosexual behavior is not in the best of interest of children?

[ketsu]

Just how many grown children of “stable homosexual parents” have you been in contact with? The very idea of homosexual “couples” raising children together is rather new. Even today, there are very few of these couples, and most would only have young children.

I have little doubt that the number kids old enough to mug someone, raised by a pair of homosexual parents (”stable” or otherwise) is statistically insignificant. And even if they don’t mug you, they might well molest your child.

It's not that new. These children were adopted in the early 90s.

And no they won't molest your children.

[BykrBayb]

Jim, I told ketsu that Free Republic is a conservative forum and DU is liberal. He/she says I have it backwards. Would you mind clearing that up? Is FR a liberal forum which supports the homosexual agenda?

[metmom]

I'm wondering what a modern conservativism that meaningfully advocated family values would look like.

A lot like old time conservatism because that's the ONLY thing that advocates family values.

[metmom]

Even supposed moral absolutists complete change their supposed moral absolutes from generation to generation.

Unadulterated horse hockey.

If the morals changed, they weren't absolutes.

[DJ MacWoW]

AMERICAN COLLEGE OF PEDIATRICIANS says:

There is significant risk of harm inherent in exposing a child to the homosexual lifestyle. Given the current body of evidence, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science.

[metmom]

Funny how marriage died but we’re supposed to all support redefining it so gays can marry.

[ketsu]

The reason inner city Philly is rotten (or at least one of the main reasons) is AFDC, along with food stamps, HUD and other bennies for unwed mothers. The rate of illigitemacy among blacks before all of these was about 20%, now it’s about 80%. I agree that rewarding bad behavior does nothing but increase it.

The culture is also toxic. But the homosexual agenda is part and parcel of the hedonist/reject traditional rules/if it feels good do it problem.

Now we're getting somewhere. Entitlements are part of the problem, but if entitlements were the root of all evil Nigeria would be a paradise.

But you're 100% right. The problem is that *there are no consequences for bad behavior anymore*. It used to be that nature and society intervened. Want to be promiscuous? You died of an STD, had children you couldn't support and were cast out of society.

However, technology(medicine, transport, cheap food) has made most of those problems tractable. Monstrous diseases like AIDs are treatable. Most single parents, either thanks to the government or their own work can feed their children. Ostracized people can just move to a new city.

The old rules don't work anymore. The wages of sin may still be death, but that death is much longer coming.

[DJ MacWoW]

This is a conservative activist site. I think you may be lost.

[metmom]

In the old days, fornication led to bastards, disease and ostracism. It still does to some extent, but not nearly as much.

Another crock. It still leads to the same things it always did.

Or aren't you aware of AIDs, HPV, and other STD's that are on the increase?

[ketsu]

A lot like old time conservatism because that's the ONLY thing that advocates family values.

Indeed. That's why I'm conservative; however, there's a difference between having a positive view of what you want and knowing what you don't want.

Modern conservatism has a lot of views of what it *doesn't* want. However it offers very little constructive views of what it *does*. Saying single parents and homos are bad is easy. Coming up with a coherent view of a strong family oriented society in the modern world is hard.

How do you come up with strong families when you're constantly moving from place to place with new jobs? How do you take the tide of illegitimate, lonely and neglected children and put them in environments where they can succeed?

The modern conservative answer is to make a bunch of stuff illegal, more government. There's very little work on constructing low level social structures that maintain and perpetuate strong families and stable society.

[metmom]

Single parenting is awful. Worse than homosexuals from my experience.

What a slap in the face to ALL the single parent families out there and all the single parent FReepers on this forum.

Nice broad brush you paint them with. That includes those who are divorced against their will, whose spouses up and leave and abandon the family, those whose spouses are sick or incapacitated in some way and essentially can't help with the child rearing, soldiers who are out on duty and stationed overseas so the spouse is raising the children alone, and those whose spouses have DIED.

This boy is part of a single parent family now.

[metmom]

You are not a conservative. You are a liberaltarian, pro-homosexual marriage, anarchist.

[PeterPrinciple]

The modern conservative answer is to make a bunch of stuff illegal, more government. There’s very little work on constructing low level social structures that maintain and perpetuate strong families and stable society.

---

Inquiring minds would like to know what you are doing to practice what you preach. I like what you said.

[BykrBayb]

AIDs had nothing to do with the old rules, because AIDs didn’t even exist. Treatment for AIDs does not negate the absolute moral code we have lived by for thousands of years. Try something else.

[BykrBayb]

Yes, it is a slap in the face. It is disgusting that anyone would suggest that fine young son of a great American hero would be better off in the hands of a homosexual. When did the trolls come out of the closet with their perverted ideas?

[Kaslin]

I doubt that a person’s eyesight who was born blind could be restored just as much as person’s hearing cold be restored who is deaf due to nerve damage. My daughter is deaf in her left ear, because the nerve was damaged when she suffered from Meningitis as an infant

[pandoraou812]

Here we might have some of the same views lol.