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?
So, you think the problems of the inner cities would be solved if more of the gang bangers were homosexuals?You'd be surprised at the number of gang-bangers "on the down low". If they got married...
Yup. I posted fact in 53. Instead they come back with anecdotal crap.
Is that why you wish to destroy marriage? Because you blame it for something that went wrong in your own life?
Then why are you advocating for gay marriage?
You CANNOT have a wholesome society without conventional rules. It's the conventional rules which make society wholesome.Now we have something to agree on. We *need conventional rules*. The problem is that society is changing so fast that the old rules don't work anymore. It's easy to enforce rules in a small town where everyone knows everyone. In a society where everyone's bouncing from city to city, much less so. What can we do to come up with a set of rules that work? That's the kind of conservative manifesto I want to see.
Three?! Your basing your opinion on the PUBLIC BEHAVIOR of THREE homosexual couples?
Single parents? More than I want to think of.
Are you saying that of all the single parents you've known that you haven't known three good ones?
Again, what is your criteria for what is good and what is bad?
The issue is not marriage. The issue is making the issue about marriage. The problem is not marriage, it's marriage's abject failure as an institution.
You've actually said NOTHING here.
Marriage hasn't failed, it's been around for six thousand years and it works fine, some people don't have the committment to it that they should, but that's not the fault of marriage.
But again, why are you talking about why homosexuals should be parents? NOBODY is saying that they can't be.
Yep, I guess they want to learn about sodomy BEFORE they get to prison.
Then why are you advocating for gay marriage?I'm not. I'm saying that throwing conniptions about gay marriage begs the real question of how modern conservatism and modern families should actually work.
Maybe they look at prison like a sexual smorgasbord.
DUH!!! If you’re making up new rules, they’re not conventional rules.
You can’t have conventional rules and new ones at the same time.
Despite what any lamebrain law may say two homosexuals do not qualify as parents. A man and a woman do,as both the Bible and common sense point out. That said, I have known one lesbian with two daughters. Whether her lover was involved in raising them I don’t know. That was many years ago. That society is even debating the issue, when common decency and common sense provide us with a resounding NO for an answer, points out how pathetically ignorant and sick our culture has become.
The old rules always worked just fine. We didn’t need a manifesto. The rules were the same from one town to the next, from the farms to the high-rises. we don’t need your progressive confusion to set things straight, so to speak.
We don’t need new conventional rules. We have some here that work just fine.
Exodus 20
1 And God spoke all these words, saying,
2 “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
3 “You shall have no other gods before me.
4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
7 “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.
8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, 10but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. 11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
12 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you.
13 “You shall not murder.
14 “You shall not commit adultery.
15 “You shall not steal.
16 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s.”
Moral relativism has ALWAYS been at the core of libertarianism.
What can we do to come up with a set of rules that work? That's the kind of conservative manifesto I want to see.
The same moral principles that have worked for six thousand years still work today and conservatives already know this.
Getting back to old conventional rules is what’s going to work and make marriage work.
Bet rid of this homosexual marriage nonsense which is Satan’s attempt to destroy this culture, and get back to traditional male/female marriage.
The best thing to do to fix the problem is not redefine marriage but to teach people how to make marriage and families work.
Gay marriage is not a family.
It’s two guys shacking up.
Three?! Your basing your opinion on the PUBLIC BEHAVIOR of THREE homosexual couples?Marriage *has* failed. What passes today is no longer marriage, it's serial monogamy, which is significantly different.Are you saying that of all the single parents you've known that you haven't known three good ones?
Marriage hasn't failed, it's been around for six thousand years and it works fine, some people don't have the committment to it that they should, but that's not the fault of marriage.
Back to the subject, yes my sample has significant selection bias, both for the fact that irresponsible homosexuals don't cohabit, don't adopt and by the nature of the sexual behavior don't have children.
On the other hand children are a natural product of heterosexual sex(and quite easy to make all things considered). Which means that it's actually easier for irresponsible heterosexuals to have children than the opposite.
Which brings us right back to the topic I've been advocating, how can a modern society be organized to produce stable, committed two parent households? The current way doesn't work.
“The problem is that society is changing so fast that the old rules don’t work anymore.”
I can just hear ol’ Uncle Screwtape whispering this...
You can’t have conventional rules and new ones at the same time.You don't understand the meaning of convention. Look it up.
That’s “Get rid of”...not “Bet rid of” ...
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.