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?
Yep, I knew what the book was about before I read it, but it still blew me away.
An excellent read.
Lewis really exposes the mind games that go on. After reading that, when you come across liberal logic (for lack of a better term) you really see it for what it is.
You learn to recognize stealth support for evil.
This article looks great - I’ll have more time tomorrow to do it justice.
I haven’t read it all myself! Tomorrow... As usual trying to do a bunch of things at once and then got locked into the little debate about a “conservative manifesto” - somehow those words just don’t sound right together.
You sound like me - I find myself busy in places I didn’t even know I was going to. LOL!
The word “manifesto” is usually coupled with “communist.” To hear it with “conservative” does sound strange, initially.
It’ll sound even stranger when you read the whole thread...
“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.”
Are two people with a piece of paper from the gubberment married? Are two people without a piece of paper from the gubberment but who are married in their faith married? What if the gubberment stopped giving out pieces of paper saying people are married because a particular faith wouldn’t play ball with the gubberment idea of marriage (which includes “gay marriage”)? Would people be less married in that Church because of that?
Freegards
John 3:19
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
Here’s a coherent conservative strategy for changing the face of America.
1. Take back the education of our children....’cause we’re the only ones having children.
2. Provide a better media alternative that turns America our direction
Men also are protected by marriage. Research has shown that (heterosexually) married men live longer and are happier than single men.
No, not really. Anyone can always find exceptions; but the preponderance of the research still supports heterosexual marriage hands down.
Two wrongs don't make a right. There are some social institutions too vital to discard, even when they are in disrepair. Marriage is a fundamental building block of society and must not be allowed to be thrown out because of the carelessness of recent generations, much of which has been fueled and funded by communist and atheist activists with the specific purpose of bringing down our Constitution.
During our nation's most radical judicial era before this one, the post-Roe years of the 70s, our courts made many decisions equating any distinction between the married and the unmarried as egregious "discrimination." They also upheld the right to marry of persons who were clearly unfit, such as a man who had abandoned two sets of children by previous marriages and then was turned down for a new marriage license in his state, where the taxpayers were supporting his abandoned children. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled that his "right" to marry trumped his personal irresponsibility. I wish I could remember the name of the case, and can look it up if anyone has their panties in a wad over it; I cited it a dozen years ago in my grad thesis.
One of the gravest difficulties of this entire scenario is the person who indulges in gay behavior, but gets married to a person of the opposite sex anyway and has children. When society upholds a single standard for marriage, many children get caught up in this disgrace and sham. Unfortunately, the liberal "no-fault" society does not see this kind of betrayal of vows as a crime, since a commitment of great value is wasted by the double-dealing spouse; but the logical protection for children is to prosecute for adultery as we did in the past, or at least deny custody.
But nooooooo.
The gay rights movement makes a fundamental error in confusing sentimentality with love. Real love is self-sacrificing for the highest good of the other person. Certainly, that is the opposite of what a gay "parent" does, in denying the child his or her birthright of blood relations and family history.
As the renowned gay wit, Oscar Wilde, once said, "Sentimentality is loving people more than God would."
Unfortunately, our radical courts invented such a right, post-Brown and Roe. See post 212.
Wow! What a shame this "pithy" summation is too long for a tagline! That's one for the ages...
Your experience does not a reliable statistic make.
Every time we have a gay marriage thread to discuss social policy, we have a few posters who claim that because they know someone who is gay and whom they like, gay marriage should be legal. This is not an appropriate way to determine policy for the whole of society, particularly those children who are harmed by being buffeted about or abused in gay relationships.
If you have not looked at the big picture, it really doesn't matter how well your gay poster boys are doing in their situation. They know they are on display as pioneers, and are careful of what they do. But as soon as society "normalizes" gay "marriage" and "parenting" for everyone, the barriers will come crashing down.
As two examples, take a look at the case of Frank Lombard, who got cocky living in a gay commune and having a gayness-related official position at Duke University, and then purposely adopted a boy and not only began abusing him as an infant, but also pimping him out online at age 5. Did I mention that Lombard lived in a committed relationship with a gay partner, and was also a youth leader in his local Episcopal church? And how about the Jesse Dirkhisking case, in which Jesse's parents were politically correct enough to let him hang out with gay "family friends" -- and he ended up torture-raped to death.
Political correctness demands that homosexual child abuse be viewd no differently than heterosexual child abuse. That is pure crap. If there can be an additional measure of "hate" crimes because a person's "gay identity" is assaulted, there can certainly be an additional measure of assault against a child's identity when there is an assault by a homosexual.
Homosexual "parenting" is by its very nature a form of child abuse. It messes with a child's most basic, "needs-no-explanation" self-image -- as a being who was created through natural means by a man and a woman as an act not only of love, but of lifelong relationship to parents, even if those parents are less than ideal. They are, and will always be, the biological parents, and they pass along a measure of natural identity that all the laws in the world can never change.
The marriage of a man and a woman is so basic and natural that it pre-dated America, the Supreme Court, and a host of recent secular rationales such as gay civil rights theory or the sham of "gay identity". And it will outlast them, as well.
Government is only necessary when natural laws are broken in any arena of life.
Regarding marriage, government exists to safeguard abandoned, abused or neglected children and/or abandoned spouses, heirs, and/or family members who are (or become) disabled.
Don’t fall into the marriage license trap. ALL American law comes from English common law and the English began issuing marriage licenses in the 14th century, this was done as a convenience to eliminate the banns of marriage that were issued earlier. To say that marriage isn’t any of the government’s business is the same as saying that ALL laws regarding marriage should be ignored and this would include polygamy, incest and the marriage of children.
The purposeful efforts of the communist-founded ACLU, the feminists and a variety of other atheist activists since the 1960s have been to destroy marriage, because they know it is the wellspring of privacy and individual liberty that is also tempered and refined by moral values. They have succeeded very well, if not as completely as they wish. Millions of lives have been ruined, quite purposely, by their heartless disregard for the truth of human nature. Blaming "society" now for what 50 years of elites have done will not fix the problem.
Conservatives badly need a coherent line of legal thought and test cases before the SCOTUS to re-establish the rights of the moral population -- "feminist theory", "civil rights theory", "critical theory" and test cases are how the satanic activists have dismantled our society. If Obama gets to appoint another radical looney to the Courts, all may be lost.
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.