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?
No way a homosexual couple can raise children right. Kids learn by example. Same sex couples are teaching the kids with their sick lifestyles that sodomy is OK.
Any “parent” who engages in a homosexual relationship when they have a child to raise is being selfish. A single parent who puts off their sex life to raise their child(ren) is a much better parent.
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.Marriage is a dead institution. With divorce and serial marriage, marriage is no longer marriage, it's a cohabiting agreement.
The real key to this is to define a sane form of cohabitation and leave marriage to religious people who actually want to respect the institution.
Anecdotal and not backed by research.
However all the homosexual parents I've known have been *much* better than the single parents I've known.
Again. You are trying to confuse the issue by adding something that is NOT the subject at hand. We are discussing deviant behaviour of homosexuals and their agenda.
How many of each have you known?
What is your criteria based on?
I don't disagree that homosexuals are very adept at portraying themselves a certain way in public, this has nothing to do with what goes on in private.
Finally, what does this have to do with marriage? Nobody is suggesting that homosexuals aren't free to have children, in fact nobody is saying that they can't get married, what we are talking about is that homosexuals shouldn't get some special provisions that the rest of us don't have.
“Plenty of restrictions normal people have to put up with.”
I got a chuckle out of this. I know it isn’t what you mean but this sentence sounds like you are annoyed at those restrictions. :)
No way a homosexual couple can raise children right. Kids learn by example. Same sex couples are teaching the kids with their sick lifestyles that sodomy is OK.How many homosexual parents have you known?
Any “parent” who engages in a homosexual relationship when they have a child to raise is being selfish. A single parent who puts off their sex life to raise their child(ren) is a much better parent.Tell that to the lost generation in any American inner-city.
What does that have to do with ANYTHING?
Has anyone suggested that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to have children?
Has anyone suggested that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry?
Is that why deviants are fighting for gay marriage to be recognized? Because it's dead?
Weak argument. What you want is to water down morality so the slugs are comfy. No deal.
So, you think the problems of the inner cities would be solved if more of the gang bangers were homosexuals?
Fine. Call me a nanny stater. NO! Homosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt. There is nothing stopping them from being parents should they decide to someone arrange procreation on their own, but that's a whole 'nother issue.
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?"
No, it doesn't, because that just smoke and mirrors to cover up the social decay that is brought about by the dissolution of moral values.
You CANNOT have a wholesome society without conventional rules. It's the conventional rules which make society wholesome.
You are seriously on the wrong forum. Here, this one would suit you much better.....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/
I don’t know how that follows the argument,
but it’s funny...
Easy divorce laws have already done that. Marriage has gone from a lifetime commitment to a temporary union that lasts only until something better comes along. And when that time comes then the interests of the children are pretty much tossed out with the rest of the marriage. So I'm sorry, you can't blame same-sex couples for trivializing marriage and making it meaningless. That happened a long time ago.
Tell that to the victims of your homosexual promoting lifestyle. Children have a natural born right to be cared for, and not pushed aside in pursuit of deviant sex. It’s not possible to love a child, and at the same time put your sex life ahead of them.
What you’re seeing is the difference between a conservative, one that understands the basis of a stable society,
and an anything goes libertarian.
LOL!! Purple and pink gang colors?!
Sources? Statistics?
You are making a lot of baseless claims and nobody is taking your opinion of it as fact.
How many of each have you known?I've known three stable, gay (male) families raising children(adopted from the inner city, which made for interesting confusion when the two daddies were out with their kids).What is your criteria based on?
I don't disagree that homosexuals are very adept at portraying themselves a certain way in public, this has nothing to do with what goes on in private.
Finally, what does this have to do with marriage? Nobody is suggesting that homosexuals aren't free to have children, in fact nobody is saying that they can't get married, what we are talking about is that homosexuals shouldn't get some special provisions that the rest of us don't have.
Single parents? More than I want to think of.
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.
No, I’m just pointing out that it’s not like normal people can marry whoever they want, or do anything they want when it comes to marriage. Others normal people (heteros) have argued to marry younger people, family members, multiple spouses, citing ‘fairness’, ‘love’ ,etc and we haven’t budged for them. No way we’re going to for perverts.
:)
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.