Posted on 03/09/2010 12:18:39 PM PST by 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?
LOL, should have hit refresh before I posted #180.
That’s better stated than what I posted.
Actually, those “in power” still believe in right and wrong. It’s just that their vision is a photo negative.
White = black, wrong = right, truth = lies, etc.
Some of these haves some good points, especially #1, but #5 is B.S. If two gays are exclusive*, they are not going to be getting diseases, and no one has found anything harmful that lesbians do.
* not a given, I know
People react to incentives. If people are told that the only ways they will be cared for in their old age are if they (1) raise children in whom they instill sufficient respect that they will provide care when the time comes, or (2) bank enough money to provide for one's own needs, or (3) make themselves sufficiently likable that someone else will support them, then a lot of people will do one of those things, especially if they're allowed to keep enough of their own income to do so.
Unfortunately, many government "safety net" programs have the effect of eliminating people's need to accomplish any of the above. Consequently, people do them less and less.
Certainly a transition back to the proper way of doing things will be unpleasant, but that is the nature of life. Unpleasantness is sometimes natural and unavoidable, and efforts to unnaturally avoid it will ultimately make things worse.
Well, they talk about “moral relativity” and “create your own reality” as though all POV are equal. But really they just want to replace reality with their insanity and evil!
Like I said, I should have hit refresh first and read your post.
I guess I’m not getting where you are coming from. To me, the religious element in marriage is all I care about, a piece of paper from the gubberment doesn’t make someone married. The only way I can see that I might be forced to recognize something that my faith teaches is impossible, like “gay marriage”, is if the gubberment is involved.
Revenging yourself violently upon anyone for any reason is illegal, isn’t it? Or am I very possibly missing something?
Freegards
Unfortunately, many people have been conditioned to think that conservatives regard things as being right and wrong because the Bible says they are; they're not 100% wrong, since there probably are some conservatives who see morality as coming from the Bible, but the reality of good and evil is much deeper. If something is wrong and the Bible says it is, it is not wrong because the Bible says it is; rather, the reason the Bible says it's wrong because it is.
People existed long before Moses transcribed the Ten Commandments. Right and wrong existed then, too.
The more people telling the truth, the better!!!!
YES!
Yes, as you mention -even the ancient residents of Ur knew right and wrong existed, hence the Code of Hammurabi.
Yes, but there are ohers who are better with stating it than I.
And with less typos!
;-)
What moral relativists NEVER consider is when public opinion swings another way. By their logic the Muhammadens are perfectly justified in forcing young girls into marriage and murdering them if they don't comply, by their logic that Nazis were perfectly justified to kill anyone they wanted.
Excellent post!
Before the existence of government, individuals would inflict vengeance upon those who wronged them. If someone (bleep)ed my wife, I couldn't take the (bleep)er to court, but there would be nothing to stop me from killing him myself (unless he was too much bigger and stronger than me, in which case I'd be out of luck). There are no historical records to show how well this worked as a system, but it obviously worked well enough for the human race to survive long enough to invent governments.
Though the religious aspects of your marriage may be most important to you, people of many other religions would regard them as totally meaningless. On the other hand, even people whose religion has nothing in common with yours would generally recognize that your wife is, well, your wife. Not because your religion says she's your wife, or because your government says she's your wife, but because she is your wife.
Well, I would say that it is only a matter of time before gubberment messes up something it is involved with. If it hasn’t yet, give it time.
“...but thanks to special interest groups and the libertarian mindset...”
The institution of marriage should never have been put in a position where those things influencing gubberment could hurt marriage. I bet if marriage was left up to religions you wouldn’t have so many folks willing to believe something impossible can exist (gay marriage) just because gubberment says it does.
Freegards
It seems to me that you are the one advocating for some kind of "Modern Conservatism" as you are the one advocating for gay marriage and gay adoption and acceptance of the gay agenda. That is certainly not a classic conservative position. The classic conservative position is that the Traditional Family is the root of a moral society and it is the liberals who for the last 100 years have been tearing at the fabric of our traditional family advocating such destructive ideas as "no fault divorce" and "domestic partnerships" and gay rights to adoption and child custody. Homosexuality was traditionally considered a mental disorder and was classified as such in the orginal DSM manuals. Now it is considered by liberals to be a valid interpersonal relationship on an equal footing both psychologically and socially as marriage itself.
What kind of society are you promoting anyway? One in which eventually we will have not only gay marriage, but incestuous and polygamous marriages? Don't you think that people who are born with a sexual attraction to a lot of women should have the right to marry them all? If not, they why would you advocate these rights for homosexuals?
BTW you don't have to answer this, because I suspect that if you continue to advocate for the homosexual agenda, you will be Zotted again.
“Though the religious aspects of your marriage may be most important to you, people of many other religions would regard them as totally meaningless.”
Why should I care how others regard my marriage? I reckon they are free to think what they want about it, just as I am theirs according to what my faith teaches. Unless gubberment starts making folks accept stuff they know can’t exist.
“Before the existence of government, individuals would inflict vengeance upon those who wronged them. If someone (bleep)ed my wife, I couldn’t take the (bleep)er to court, but there would be nothing to stop me from killing him myself (unless he was too much bigger and stronger than me, in which case I’d be out of luck). There are no historical records to show how well this worked as a system, but it obviously worked well enough for the human race to survive long enough to invent governments.”
This could be true. I reckon I’m not seeing how gubberment getting its beak outta marriage is connected to it. No civil marriage licenses = no civilization?
Freegards
By insisting the the government not be involved in defining marriage, it ends up not supporting marriage at all.
There is no neutral position on marriage that the government can take. It either supports it or it doesn't. If it doesn't then it's undermining it maybe inadvertently but definitely through inaction.
The Screwtape Letters rocked my world several years back when I read them for the first time. I love CS Lewis’ work!
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.