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?
I will point out that many libertarians, generally considered to be conservatives, feel that marriage of any sort is none of the government's business. They believe the government should stay out of it and leave it to churches, synagogues, mosques, whatever... Since there are churches and synagogues which perform same-sex marriages they wouldn't object to that.
If marriage is a holy sacrament, is that really the business of government?
Food for thought...
I think you desire to wish your cousin happiness is well placed.
However, as you probably already realize, a homosexual relationship will not bring him happiness.
This article is not about single parents, it's about deviants.
Well said.
Since your entire argument hinges on this assumption, I curious if you have anything to substantiate this claim.
*Allow?!?! And just who gets to decide that? YOU? The government?It works both ways. Now I can turn around and ask you, why *shouldn't* gay couples be allowed to be parents? If you say no, then I can call you a nanny stater etc... The issue is far more complicated than what passes for modern conservatism gives it credit for and boils down to "how do you create a real, wholesome society in a world where the conventional rules don't work anymore?"The real question is, "What are YOU doing on FR supporting gay marriage and nanny-statism?"
Being conservative is more than reciting talking points and getting angry about homos. Liberalism avoids the issue entirely by saying that all social organizations are equal. Conservatism tries to make it tractable by going after little, easily digestible parts of social decline but ignoring the greater, far more complicated and destructive big picture.
This article is not about single parents, it's about deviants.Most "deviants" I know are far better parents than their many times divorced, selfish and irresponsible single parent brethren. It's not nearly that simple.
All children come from one flesh families.
They all have ONE mom and ONE dad.
Dad may be a sperm donor. Mom may be a surrogate mother. Regardless we all have ONE mom and ONE dad.
If that mom and dad, for whatever reasons, are not together and parenting that child. . .
the child suffers.
We as individuals and as a society have to do the best by that child.
Perhaps it means we, as a widowed spouse, raise the kid ourselves with help from our family.
Perhaps it means that we, as an abandoned spouse, find and marry a better husband/wife and they do our best as a step parent.
Perhaps it means we adopt kids who are abandoned, or foster care them.
In any event, our attempts to fix the loss are not wrong. What is wrong are the situations that caused the kids to suffer. With the exception of the inadvertent death of a parent - that is just a tragedy. At least the kid knows in that case that his parent didn’t leave him on purpose.
Actual conservatives don't consider libertarians to be conservatives.
If marriage is a holy sacrament, is that really the business of government?
Marriage licensing has been a function of government in England (where nearly all American common law derives from) for nearly 800 years. NOBODY was suggesting otherwise until the libertarians decided to side with militant homosexuals a few years back.
All children are a result of the *one flesh* union between a man and a woman. The fact that they’re no longer living with the parents who brought them into this world is totally irrelevant.
You are right and you are wrong. Yes, only a man and woman can create one flesh. No, the bible speaks of the union of a man and woman becoming one flesh. This is deeper than simple precreative math. When a man and woman commit to one another their reward is to create a child in their joined image. It is this joining between man, woman and child that is precious and holy and speaks to the spirit and soul. This is unique. Sadly, many children do not get this complete dose of mega cosmic love and are handicapped thereafter. Yes - regardless of condition, all children should be loved, but then adults should grow up and accept their adult roles. This seems to be the problem. My point is the concept of “one flesh” is heavy, big, and meaningful. It is sobering and uplifting at all times.
Best for kids, bottom line is a stable mom and dad, I agree. Single parenting can be awful. It’s hard. But - I’ve had way too much exposure to the effects of homosexuals raising kids, and they’re better off with a stable straight single parent.I disagree. I've been just as exposed to selfish single parents(primarily in the inner city) and seen the difference between their children and those of a stable homosexual parents. I'm sure the issues that come from having homosexual parents are legion however, I have yet to be mugged by a child of a two parent homosexual family.
Oops! This isn’t your DU account. This is Free Republic, where you pose as a conservative.
That's an opinion. And it's not based in fact.
Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time For Change? - AMERICAN COLLEGE OF PEDIATRICIANS
In summary, tradition and science agree that biological ties and dual gender parenting are protective for children. The family environment in which children are reared plays a critical role in forming a secure gender identity, positive emotional well-being, and optimal academic achievement. Decades of social science research documents that children develop optimally when reared by their two biological parents in a low conflict marriage. The limited research advocating childrearing by homosexual parents has severe methodological limitations. 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.
We as individuals and as a society have to do the best by that child.Ding ding ding. Now the question is, *how do we do that*? Solve that problem and the problem of homosexual parents goes away.
love has nothing to do with marriage under the law
Oops! This isn’t your DU account. This is Free Republic, where you pose as a conservative.Yawn...
Many libertarians are anarchists, not conservatives.
I saw an ex-FReeper who hailed himself as a libertarian bragging on another forum that he supported homosexual marriage for years on FR under that very guise that you’re advocating, that the government shouldn’t be in the business of defining marriage.
The problem is, by insisting that the government not define marriage, it IS defining marriage. What people don’t want is that the government define marriage as between one man and one woman at a time. So they insist that the government not define it, which means that the government by default DOES define it as anything goes.
That's an opinion. And it's not based in fact.I just know what I've seen in the real world, living in the city. Like I said, I'm sure that homosexual parenting is *not as good as a stable two parent household*. However all the homosexual parents I've known have been *much* better than the single parents I've known.
By refusing to condone immorality.
Being a libertarian is being a liberal and anarchist in disguise.
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.