Same-Sex Marriage - A Threat To Whom?

Now you say I am "ignoring everything" you have said.

I said no such thing - context is everything. You keep trying to speak for me by ignoring what I've said, and you've incorrectly assumed "my real concerns" and said "you folks [are] so convinced of your goodness and righteousness" and many other very incorrect statements.

I also said you have consistently misreprented my position by using words like hate and revulsion. Your attempts at denigrating my character are no small number.

You also keep using misdirection, and no small amount of it. At least twice now you've brought up the Bible in yet another attempt ot change the subject. The rest of your post is merely misdirection.

I'm staying on topic.

I stated that I had no problem limiting marriage to two persons not related by blood.

But why would you (just you) want to prevent two consenting adults related by blood from marrying? Why just "a monopoly" (your words) of two unrelated consenting adults? What about three, four and five consenting adults. Your only repsonse is to post the concerns of others. What is your concern with limiting marriage?

The title of your thread is Same-Sex Marraige - A Threat To Whom?. So, for consenting adults related by blood that want to marry, for any number of consenting adults, related by blood or not that want to marry, I'm asking you your own question: to whom is it a threat? Why do you insist on limiting marriage to only two?

You really need to get to know former homosexuals and hear what they have to say.

But why would you (just you) want to prevent two consenting adults related by blood from marrying? Why just "a monopoly" (your words) of two unrelated consenting adults?

Scripter, you already know the answer to this question so why do you bring it up? Obviously, there are increased risks of mental and physical disabilities in children produced from parents who are closely related by blood. Of course, nothing currently prevents closely related men and women from producing children, without anyone even knowing that the child's mother and father are related by blood.

In this discussion, I have been focusing on the "public policy" choices of the matter. In other words, I prefer to look for ways to accommodate critics of same-sex marriage so that an agreement can be reached that would permit legalization of gay marriage by a general consensus within our society.

By contrast, you apparently want to focus upon the IDEOLOGY behind public policy disputes. That is: focus on the most contentious aspects that bring out personal values or principles (often expressed in absolute, no-exceptions terms) that separate opponents in public policy debates---because as ideological arguments are made, there is dramatically less possibility of reaching consensus.

With respect to your larger question of "why limit marriage to only 2 persons?" (even if unrelated by blood), personally I have not thought about this hypothetical very much so I cannot offer you a fully-developed opinion. But given my first principles (previously stated), I might be persuaded that other types of marriages should be recognized--even if they involve 3 or more persons.

Early-on in this debate, someone posted a message asking why government should be involved at all in this question. That is actually an interesting question which might be explored.

Obviously, there are increased risks of mental and physical disabilities in children produced from parents who are closely related by blood.

Apparently my question wasn't very clear. That question was in reference to same-sex consenting adults related by blood. Since you previously said:

[you] had no problem limiting marriage to two persons not related by blood.

So my question was why? Why would you want to prevent two same-sex blood relatives from marrying. They can't have children so there's no risk of mental and physical disabilities in children.

...I might be persuaded that other types of marriages should be recognized--even if they involve 3 or more persons.

A couple of times in regards to same-sex marriage you've mentioned the American family can do so in an amicable, civil manner. With what America is saying across the nation in regards to same-sex marriage, I would think such a proposition would go over as well as a lead balloon.

I think we should always consider the effect social changes will have on children, who are not guinea pigs for social change.

Ernie,

Being gay was extreme at some point in history just as my marriage suggestions are in my response. However, now you are calling my points extreme as if they are simply impossible.

My point is, why draw a line of any kind if you are all about freedom. What makes you define something as extreme? Why is that wrong and the other right? Sounds like you are rolling with the times and simply bending rights and wrongs for other reasons.

I asked you if you would allow your daughter to be one of 30 wives. Why not? If it is consenting. That is not extrema. It exists right now. ...and why stop there? What is your reason for that being "extreme". Why is it dismissed as "extreme"? If enough people wanted to have 30 wives why would you stop them? Or would you if enough people want it.

Let me remind you that the Greek and Roman society used to engage in things that today you would call extreme but that they used to see as normal such as sex with a young boy as passage into manhood.

If you step back and look at history you will find some correlation between low morals and economic feasts and high morals during famine.

So my question was why? Why would you want to prevent two same-sex blood relatives from marrying. They can't have children so there's no risk of mental and physical disabilities in children.

There is a distinction between my personal beliefs (and how I might be persuaded to accept other types of marriage) versus what might be acceptable to a broad consensus within society. I suppose abortion opponents make the same kinds of distinctions when they accept and promote public policy options which don't fully conform to their philosophical or moral objections to abortion but, nevertheless, do address their primary objective.

With what America is saying across the nation in regards to same-sex marriage, I would think such a proposition would go over as well as a lead balloon.

(1) We wouldn't even be discussing this subject if it were not for the fact that public attitudes about homosexuality have already undergone a sea change of enormous proportions during the past 30-50 years.

(2) Thirty years ago it was EXTREMELY RARE for any prominent person to acknowledge his or her same-sex preference. In Hollywood, for example, phony marriages were arranged to hide true sexual preference (such as Charles Laughton to Elsa Lanchester). In politics, no candidate in their right mind would publicly announce their sexual orientation.

(3) From the polling data that I have seen, it appears that the least resistance to same sex marriage comes from younger people. Consequently, what the medium-term future produces could be dramatically different than the current situation.

(4) If you take a look at polling done in the late 1950's about various aspects of the race issue in this country, the negative responses with respect to integration were even more dramatic than the current adverse poll results regarding same-sex marriage or adoption. So what you are referring to is a "snapshot" in time. And that "snapshot" has already changed significantly even just during the past decade. As we have previously discussed, opposition to social change can be based upon false or grossly exaggerated ideas. There are always those among us who use language to promote fear, disgust, and revulsion toward other human beings and, thus, seek to create irreconciliable differences.

Fortunately, Americans instinctively understand the value of judging people as individuals---not as a group label. MOST Americans perceive "John" or "Ellen" as individual HUMAN BEINGS with specific qualities and characteristics. They don't BEGIN by perceiving John or Ellen as "pervert".

As Americans come to know John or Ellen as human beings, they make reasoned and informed judgments about their intelligence, character, and integrity. Once those judgments are made, no appeals to "dictionary definitions" will carry as much weight as first-hand personal experience---because we do not live our lives by rigid application of dictionary definitions whose only proponents have an animus against gays.

I agree that children should not be guinea pigs for social change. On the other hand, there are thousands of unwanted children who languish in institutions --or-- whom are shuttled from one foster home to another. If a gay couple can prove that they meet the same criteria as a straight couple, I do not believe they should be automatically and permanently rejected from providing a loving, nurturing home to a needy child. Furthermore, during the past 50 years, tens of thousands of gay men already HAVE HAD children. Their ability to be a loving, caring, and nurturing father has already been demonstrated. That ability does not just disappear because they subsequently divorce a woman and enter into a gay relationship. To paraphrase you, "what do the children (biological or adopted) of gay men or lesbians or bisexuals have to say about their parents?"

Being gay was extreme at some point in history just as my marriage suggestions are in my response. However, now you are calling my points extreme as if they are simply impossible.

Sorry, Squid, "being gay" has never been "extreme". There have ALWAYS been huge numbers of gays and bisexuals in society. In some societies, at some times in history, same-sex relationships were considered normal, and certainly NOT "perversion". By contrast, the couplings that you proposed are either extraordinarily rare or non-existent.

My point is, why draw a line of any kind if you are all about freedom. What makes you define something as extreme? Why is that wrong and the other right? Sounds like you are rolling with the times and simply bending rights and wrongs for other reasons.

From my reading of your comments, it appears that what troubles you most is the absence of absolute, no-exceptions rules, laws, or values.

"Why draw a line of any kind?..."

Because that is what human beings do! We attempt to make intelligent distinctions to arrive at reasoned and fair judgments.

I previously used the the following example: in law, morality, and consequences exacted, we make a distinction between: (a) murder, (b) manslaughter and (c) killing in self-defense --- even though all 3 involve taking human life.

If tomorrow morning I read a newspaper article about you having shot and killed a burglar in your home, should I thereafter describe you as a "murderer"? Is that a fair and accurate description?

Should you be subject to punishment as a "murderer"? Should you be perceived as a criminal because you "murdered" someone? NO! Because we make distinctions between the MOST EXTREME option (murder) and the other LESSER options. WE DRAW A LINE between the 3 situations that ALL involve taking human life.

Can we arrive at ABSOLUTE and INFALLIBLE judgments. Of course not. But Americans believe in inclusion and expanding liberty and they believe in the value of individuals---and not maligning entire categories of people whom are total strangers.

I asked you if you would allow your daughter to be one of 30 wives. Why not?

In your judgment, when we confront public policy decisions should we expend our intellectual energy on debating the LEAST-LIKELY possibilities? Or on the most probable scenarios? IF you could provide ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that there were large numbers of American men who wanted to have "30 wives" --- THEN and ONLY THEN -- would I be willing to expend energy debating whether or not a proposed law should take that situation into account.

I return to a previous analogy I used. I live very close to my city's airport. It is POSSIBLE that a jumbo jet will crash into my home (especially this week---terrible weather). But I DO NOT organize my thoughts, behavior, and decisions around that "possibility". Similarly, I would not expend any intellectual capital on the EXTREME hypotheticals you propose. Instead, let's concentrate on the primary issue before us. THAT IS DIFFICULT ENOUGH!

You responded to my post but you didn't answer my question. My question was: Why would you want to prevent two same-sex blood relatives from marrying?

Here's what you said in response:

There is a distinction between my personal beliefs (and how I might be persuaded to accept other types of marriage) versus what might be acceptable to a broad consensus within society.

I'm merely asking what you asked us. Same-sex-blood-brother marriage - a threat to whom?

As for the younger generation being more tolerating of the homosexual lifestyle, of course they are. With GLSEN in the schools, MTVs pro-homosexual bias, TV programs with a very lopsided number of homosexuals compared to the actual homosexual populace, etc. None of which show the real facts of the homosexual lifestyle, which carries with it severe, contagious and deadly health hazards.

As for children, adoption and homosexual parents, here's something I recently wrote:

We adopted two boys of mixed race - they are half brothers with the same biological mom. One was 5-years old when he came to live with us and his brother was 6-months old, and both had issues - emotional and physical.
If you want adopted children to grow up emotionally secure and well adjusted, it is important, more important then can be expressed with words that children are placed in very stable heterosexual families.
There are stable and unstable foster homes and there's no guarantee children in heterosexual foster care will be well adjusted when they turn 18.
I'm not saying this is true of all homosexuals... But with all the stats we have on homosexual violence, emotional, mental, and child abuse issues. With tens of thousands of former homosexuals testifying to the fact that homosexuality is a destructive lifestyle, we have to realize that putting any child in that environment is definitely not worth the risks.
It's not a perfect world, but when the politically correct garbage is realized for what it is, there's absolutely no reason to recognize homosexual adoption as a healthy alternative for children.

There are tens of thousands of former homosexuals who agree.

One word: children.

One word: children.

Indeed. Here's what Tammy Bruce says in The Death of Right and Wrong, p99:

Almost without exception, the gay men I know (and that's too many to count) have a story of some kind of sexual trauma or abuse in their childhood - molestation by a parent or an authority figure, or seduction as an adolescent at the hands of an adult.

And folks have to ask: a threat to whom?

If someone doesn't know... Tammy Bruce is a lesbian and her book can be purchased at Amazon here.

An affront to GOD, if you believe HE IS & cares.

Thanks for the post. In the past I've heard Tammy Bruce subbing on someone's radio show--it might've been Rusty Humphries' or the Savage Nation.

By 2010 or 2015 what specific indisputable adverse consequences to society do opponents predict to occur?

Here is the chain of reasoning:

(1) Homosexuality is NOT a genetic mandate, but an addiction into which many youths can be "recruited" at psychologically vulnerable points in development. (Some adults are vulnerable too.) (See www.narth.org)

(2) Civilizational continuity requires that this homosexual recruitment be resisted and thwarted as much as possible. When homosexuality reaches epidemic levels, disease and demographic disaster, followed by foreign conquest and demographic replacement, are the result.(All history roars out in witness to this.) BTW, all industrialized countries are now below replacement fertility!

(3) Aside from the death penalty, the best weapon that any society wields against homosexual recruitment, is *severe social opprobrium*, so as to provide a certain degree of mental resistance in vulnerable persons who are subjected to homosexual overtures. "Just say no" is not strong enough; it needs to be more like, "How DARE you!!!!"

(4) Protecting homosexuality by law, contravenes this essential social intolerance and eventually weakens it. Silencing even the most respectful disagreement with misnamed "hate speech" laws, and lowering the age of consent, are part of this movement as well. (In some countries the age of consent has been lowered to 12 -- imagine adult homosexuals making moves on your 12 year old kid, and you're not even legally allowed to prevent it!)

(5) Allowing homosexual "marriages" is the final step in removing social opprobrium and causing homosexuality to be viewed as equal to normal sex.

(6) With the social opprobrium gone, homosexuals will recruit vigorously, and successfully -- eventually dooming the society.

No, I can't tell you that it would happen by 2010 or 2015, but I can tell you with 100% certainty that it WILL happen at SOME point. All the ancient cultures (Greek, Roman, etc), started on the downslide when they began to tolerate homosexuals. When they were on the rise, all these cultures were anti-gay.

Note that I have not made any religious references here at all. However, it's not an accident that all the major world religions hate homosexuality. Either divine wisdom and/or centuries of hard-won experience has convinced all of them that homosexuality is a destructive path that ought to be discouraged by all means possible.

Wow. I didn't know Elton John is a Freeper!

You responded to my post but you didn't answer my question. My question was: Why would you want to prevent two same-sex blood relatives from marrying?

Maybe I just don't understand what you are getting at with this question.

I don't have an absolute, fixed position on this question nor does it occupy my thoughts as something important that I should think about and resolve.

If this developed into a major controversy which needed to be addressed in order to achieve agreement on the larger issue---then, I suppose I would listen to whatever arguments were presented and I then would make up my mind. Perhaps I would eventually agree with a proposal to permit same-sex marriage between blood relatives. Or, perhaps, I would encounter adverse information that seemed reasonable to me, and, consequently, I would decide against it.

Sorry--but I just don't have a definitive answer at this time. And, frankly, I don't understand what you are attempting to convey by linking this question to "threat to whom?" In general, ANY proposed change to our laws is a "threat" to whomever doesn't want to see ANY changes to the status quo, OR, at a minimum, in this specific context, a threat to anyone who prefers no changes that would give serious consideration to same-sex couples.

As for the younger generation being more tolerating of the homosexual lifestyle, of course they are. With GLSEN in the schools, MTVs pro-homosexual bias, TV programs with a very lopsided number of homosexuals compared to the actual homosexual populace, etc. None of which show the real facts of the homosexual lifestyle, which carries with it severe, contagious and deadly health hazards.

I doubt that any of the factors you list above have much impact on how judgments are arrived at about gays.

Maybe you could make a case that 2 or 3% of the age group 15-30 form their judgments based, to some degree, upon the factors you cite---but I doubt it. And what about all the countervailing factors that neutralize whatever outside influence you might perceive? Such as family teachings, church teachings, anti-gay peer pressure, hostility toward any pro-gay presentations?

Infinitely more important is first-hand experience with friends, relatives, co-workers, and any persons known to be gay whom they respect and/or admire ---not abstract ideas or MTV programs or perceived disproportionate number of gay characters on TV. Do you honestly think anyone says to themself: "Wow, gays and bisexuals are maybe 2% of our population but I have counted 5% gay characters on TV this past week, so that must mean homosexuality is a wonderful and even a desirable alternative lifestyle"?

Might I ask you how you came up with the numerical statistic you frequently use? i.e. With tens of thousands of former homosexuals testifying to the fact that homosexuality is a destructive lifestyle

(1) How did your sources arrive at that cumulative number of "former homosexuals"? Is there a journal article you can refer me to, or, perhaps a website with specific details?

(2) Was there some sort of survey sent to psychiatrists, psychologists, religious counsellors, etc. asking them to specify the number of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals who sought counselling during some specific period of time? If so, (a) what period of time does the statistic cover?and (b) how many people were surveyed?

(3) Was there any follow-up research done after the initial survey was completed? For example, suppose the statistical information was based upon data pertaining to 15,000 "former homosexuals" who, from 1995 to 1997, reported that they no longer engaged in homosexual activity after counselling. AFTER 1997, was there any follow-up study to determine what percentage of that 15,000 still reported no homosexual activity?

(4) How did the survey determine whether or not the respondents (i.e. the counsellors who provided the raw data about their success rate) were accurately reporting results? For example: how did the survey filter out possible exaggeration or even outright deception?

(5) What criteria were used to establish at what point the subjects were considered to be "former homosexuals"? For example: was it based upon 3-months or 6-months or 1-year of no homosexual activity? Or what?

(6)Was the survey result based exclusively on questions about homosexual ACTIVITY as opposed to homoerotic thoughts?

Maybe I just don't understand what you are getting at with this question.

And maybe you do. You've taken enough of my time.

Great sources of information

Homosexual Urban Legends
Narth
Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays

I checked out the websites you provided. The NARTH site was the most helpful in terms of my inquiries to you. While I could not find anything reflecting an aggregrate total number of "former homosexuals" which would support your estimate of "tens of thousands", nevertheless I did find several specific clinical studies which reported on results of therapeutic intervention. Many of these studies were conducted in the 1980's or early 1990's and often they reported upon very small numbers of patients (often less than a dozen). One of the largest studies (Bieber, 106 persons, summary copied below) included a 5-year follow-up review--although the review was limited to only about 50% of the "successful" conversions (15 of 29 persons). Obviously, there is no way to know if the Bieber study accurately reflects typical results from therapy but if it is in the general vicinity of accuracy about therapeutic effectiveness, then 73% of homosexuals and bisexuals CANNOT be converted to heterosexuality through therapy. In addition, based upon Bieber's 5-year follow-up study, we could expect 2% of initially successful converts to revert back from heterosexuality to homosexuality or bisexuality for a total of 75% non-successful therapy. Consequently, if the "tens of thousands" statistic you use is accurate (and assuming there is no significant reduction to that number caused by post-therapy return to homosexual or bisexual behavior which has NOT been captured by follow-up studies), then one must presume that a huge number of homosexuals and bisexuals have sought, via therapy, to change their sexual orientation. For example, if Bieber's 25% success rate is approximately accurate, then a minimum of 80,000+ persons must have been in therapy to produce 20,000+ conversions. 20,000 being the minimum number that could accurately be encompassed by the phrase "tens of thousands of former homosexuals". Which leads to the next question: If such a huge number of persons have sought to convert from homosexuality to heterosexuality, where are all the LARGE studies (involving several hundred participants) to document the results? Or perhaps an accumulation of smaller but still substantial studies--such as Bieber's (i.e. 100-200)? In other words, why do MOST of the clinical studies shown on NARTH discuss such miniscule samples of 4, 8, 10, 20 people? See: http://www.newdirection.ca/research/bieber.htm Brief Description: This study compares 106 male homosexuals and 100 male heterosexuals, all in treatment with members of the Society of Medical Psychoanalysts "Summary of Results: 1. Of the 72 patients who had been exclusively homosexual at the start of treatment: * 42 remained exclusively homosexual * 2 were sexually inactive * 14 were bisexual * 14 were exclusively heterosexual 2. Of the 30 patients who had been bisexual at the start of treatment: * 2 were sexually inactive * 13 remained bisexual * 15 became exclusively heterosexual 3. Of the four homosexual patients who had been sexually inactive at the start of treatment: * 1 was exclusively homosexual * 2 remained sexually inactive * 1 was bisexual (all data from Table XI-1, p. 276) 4. As discussed above, twelve of the fifteen patients who were followed for five years remained consistently heterosexual. According to Bieber (1987, p. 424), seven of these twelve had been exclusively homosexual before treatment. Thus, seven persons who were initially exclusively homosexual, remained exclusively heterosexual in behaviour for at least five years. (Note: Bieber 1967 does not distinguish between those who were initially exclusively homosexual and those who were initially bisexual.) 5. It is possible that some of the patients who were exclusively homosexual at the start of treatment experienced a partial or full shift in sexual orientation. However, based on the previous three items, there is no data to confirm or deny such a possibility.

Thus, at the time of the study, 29 patients who had been bisexual or exclusively homosexual had become exclusively heterosexual. A five-year follow-up was done on 15 of these patients: 12 of these continued to be exclusively heterosexual, and three "remained predominantly heterosexual, with sporadic homosexual episodes under situations of stress" (Bieber 1967, p. 972; Bieber 1987). "

I suggest you start where I previously sent you, post 602. You responded to the post yet completely ignored the links. If the title of the article is truncated, you can place your mouse over the title for more information.

Since you're apparently playing games and running from questions (by responding to them without answering them), I'll not waste anymore of my time.

I very much encourage you to read what former homosexuals have to say on the matter. You might want to start with reading the short bios of former homosexuals in post 604, 605, and 606.

For even more information, checkout my categorical index:

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links

There's a huge update coming soon, with nearly 800 categorized articles on the homosexual agenda.

You might find the following helpful as well:

After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's

The Pink Swastika

The Death of Right and Wrong

Another great read:

The Homosexual Propaganda and Media Manipulation Game...

Happy reading.

Dr. Robert L. Spitzer played a pivotal role in the 1973 decision by the APA to declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder. Spitzer used to believe homosexuals couldn't change but after studying the results of therapy he now believes homosexuals can change:

"I thought that homosexual behavior could be resisted--but that no one could really change their sexual orientation. I now believe that's untrue--some people can and do change." Spitzer completely changed his mind whether or not some homosexuals can change. And then Spitzer concluded with:

"the mental health professionals should stop moving in the direction of banning therapy that has, as a goal, a change in sexual orientation. Many patients, provided with informed consent about the possibility that they will be disappointed if the therapy does not succeed, can make a rational choice to work toward developing their heterosexual potential and minimizing their unwanted homosexual attractions."

Source: Spitzer made the above comments at an annual APA meeting, May 9, 2001. The study was reported in the May 9, 2001 issues of The Washington Post, The New York Times, USA Today and it was also released to many local newspapers via the AP. ABC, CBS, FOX and MSNBC all reported the study.

		After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's
		The Pink Swastika
		The Death of Right and Wrong