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?
Laws and societal standards already have existed; no new ones need to be made up. The people making up new rules are leftists and that includes liber(al)tarians.
The rules and standards that already exist are based on universal natural law. Natural law says that a father must be a man, and a mother must be a woman, and you need one of each to make and raise a baby.
It’s not rocket science.
And Thomas Jefferson had this to say:
“Reading, reflection and time have convinced me that the interests of society require the observation of those moral precepts ... in which all religions agree.”
—Thomas Jefferson
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.I can decisively say they don't. If they still did they would still work in more conservative societies like Korea, Japan or Germany.
So what do you mean by “convention”?
Miriam Webster online:
3 a : usage or custom especially in social matters
b : a rule of conduct or behavior
c : a practice in bidding or playing that conveys information between partners in a card game (as bridge)
d : an established technique, practice, or device (as in the theater)
Yup. There really IS nothing new under the sun.
On the contrary, I’m not ignoring some of the definitions of the word as you are.
“The issue is far more complicated...”
What utter poppycock. It isn’t complicated at all. You do not hand children over to deviants. Ever.
“...getting angry about homos.”
Calling homosexuals deviants is stating a fact. There is nothing “angry” about it.
Moral relativism has ALWAYS been at the core of libertarianism.Again, morality is not relative, it's adaptive. Even supposed moral absolutists complete change their supposed moral absolutes from generation to generation.
I'm not saying "let's all sing kumbayah and love each other", I'm wondering what a modern conservativism that meaningfully advocated family values would look like.
If you truly believe that conservative values don’t work, why are you posting here?
The real question should be “should we allow incompetent or unwilling people to be parents?”. Marriage died as an institution in the ‘60s. Society is falling apart and so far the best options we, as conservatives, can come up with is flailing around at a bunch of homos. Which is just the tip of a very large iceberg.
Marriage died? I’m married and it is a good one. Almost all my friends have good marriages. You are posting your opinions as though they are fact. Nonsense.
Sure society is damaged but supporting the very hedonism and rebellion against natural law that is causing the damage is not the way to bring peace and stablity!
Every society has been tainted by the lie that "self" is more important than anything else. You make it easier to divorce and more people will get one. You make it easier to have welfare baby after welfare baby and there will be more. The problem is letting people off easy from paying for the consequences of their actions.
Even supposed moral absolutists complete change their supposed moral absolutes from generation to generation.
What on earth??? Murder isn’t murder any more? Adultery isn’t adultery any more?
You’re insane.
If you truly believe that conservative values don’t work, why are you posting here?Notice that I'm always careful to use the term "modern conservatism" when I describe what I don't like. There's a difference.
Why are you supporting the homosexual agenda? Be precise, specific, and detailed, please.
I’ve noticed you have your own definition for many words. Please try to use the established definitions when posting on a conservative site. Save your newspeak for the liberal forums.
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.
I think you should keep in mind that Free Republic does NOT support the homosexual agenda in any way. This is a forum for Conservatives, not for promoting homosexualism.
It is just as much as the other "moral" oriented laws that find criminal sanction against murder, homicide, fraud, theft, libel, all of which are biblical prohibitions.
Marriage died? I’m married and it is a good one. Almost all my friends have good marriages. You are posting your opinions as though they are fact. Nonsense.Do your friends live in inner-city Philadelphia?Sure society is damaged but supporting the very hedonism and rebellion against natural law that is causing the damage is not the way to bring peace and stablity!
You misunderstand, I'm saying that instead of flailing around about things we don't like(eg. homosexuals) a far more productive track would be a way of actually making sure natural law was rewarded.
In the old days, fornication led to bastards, disease and ostracism. It still does to some extent, but not nearly as much.
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.
Marriage is not a failure as an instituton. Individual marriages become failures because of individual people. Might as well say that the institution called a constitutional republic is a failure because of the individuals in government who shouldn’t be there
I’ve noticed you have your own definition for many words. Please try to use the established definitions when posting on a conservative site. Save your newspeak for the liberal forums.I think you have it backwards.
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.