Gay marriage, abortion, and President Obama
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYqWFvIBo7k[/youtube]
Obama is like President Herod… as in King Herod. He trades blood for votes. He allows children to be killed so he can climb atop their broken bodies and glorify himself.
He does the same here with marriage. He climbs atop the institution of marriage so he can advance an agenda of evil with regard to militant homosexuality.
Don’t believe for one minute this surrogate tale of – well, he did this really for the money. HE DID THIS because he believes it and wants everyone to come to heel.
~ Michael Voris, Real Catholic TV, May 14
May.16, 2012 6:00 am |
Obama, Political anti-life bias |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
It’s fair to be cynical about the timing of Obama’s announcement that he supports gay marriage. (I’m sure he’s supported it for a long time, but timed it for donors.) But “an agenda of evil with regard to militant homosexuality”? Please. What does “militant homosexuality” even mean? Are people in straight marriages “militant heterosexuals”?
And to compare LGBT issues to abortion completely diminishes the seriousness, the loss of human life, caused by abortion. Even if you don’t like homosexuality, you must admit that the legalization of same-sex marriage has never killed anybody. It’s comparing apples and oranges.
Kelsey, I get what you’re saying, but look at it from this POV: from where I stand, Obama is trying to radically transform America specifically by attacking those traditional underpinings that have held it together. He said as much in his campaign speeches in 2008.
Forget the language here like “militant” and “evil” if they don’t work for you, and focus on what we can agree on ( I think): the welfare/entitlement state (ie, replacing a two-parent family with Big Daddy) has reduced the American family to a dysfunctional mess. You can say what you want, but we know what works in this society: a self-supporting wife and husband who, covenanted together, bring into this world their children and teach them to be the same. I will be called, no doubt, intolerant for this view. That’s ok.
And while I do think conservative Christians have already lost the whole gay issue, we will be watchful about what social engineering does to our America. Again, Obama wants to redefine what society does, is, and does for each other. Again, we know where/how children thrive. Is it a coincidence that’s God’s plan as well?
“You can say what you want, but we know what works in this society: a self-supporting wife and husband who, covenanted together, bring into this world their children and teach them to be the same.”
Recent data shows that same sex parenting is just as effective as heterosexual parenting. A recent study indicates that there is less child abuse among lesbian couples than in traditional families. For children (many of them special needs) who were languishing in foster homes, gay parents provide them with a loving family life.
And for many poor “traditional” families, “big daddy government” provides them with support (food stamps, limited TANF payments, job training, subsidized child care) that allows them to have a decent quality of life.
As more and more Catholics are leaving “mother church,” bizarro’s like this guy are left behind. One out of every 10 Americans is a former member of what is becoming a strange, medieval, bigoted cult headed by a coterie of rich, celibate (?) and misgynistic males. Thus guy has some serious issues, one of which is the dead thing on his head! (and you think Cher’s wig was bad)
CC can you please list your sources for your statements: “Recent data shows that same sex parenting is just as effective as heterosexual parenting. A recent study indicates that there is less child abuse among lesbian couples than in traditional families.”?
I’ll start caring when the first same sex marriage related death occurs. As far as I’m concerned Obama’s right about something, for once. It was bound to happen eventually.
“Although previous studies have indicated that children with same-sex parents show no significant differences compared with children in heterosexual homes when it comes to social development and adjustment, many of those investigations involved children who were born to women in heterosexual marriages, who later divorced and came out as lesbians… The authors found that children raised by lesbian mothers — whether the mother was partnered or single — scored very similarly to children raised by heterosexual parents on measures of development and social behavior. These findings were expected, the authors said; however, they were surprised to discover that children in lesbian homes scored higher than kids in straight families on some psychological measures of self-esteem and confidence, did better academically and were less likely to have behavioral problems, such as rule-breaking and aggression”
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html#ixzz1v3AzBH9g
Child Abuse Rate Zero Percent In Lesbian Households New Report Finds
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/10/lesbians-child-abuse-0-percent_n_781624.html
The HuffPo. OK.
The irony here is that I will happily concede that if it meant that more babies would be saved by abortion by being adopted by gay couples, I’m for it. For CC, there’s no reason to do anything to lessen abortion, because abortion is good. Civil rights for gays and lesbians!! YAY!! Quality of life for the poor? YAY!!! Civil rights for the unborn?
Let me quote CC here: Meh.
inConClusive
“Recent studies show”…”These findings were expected, the authors said;”…
I have never had a class on statistical analysis, but I would say that sentence would raise concern about an ‘inherent bias’ in the ones who conducted the study.
Ken, you are correct. I learned Day 1 of my Intro to Statistics course in college that a researcher should never “expect” anything.
The study that “discovered” that kids in lesbian household have a 0% abuse rate is laughably biased. The Williams Institute is a pro-gay marriage research center which utilized a carefully selected sample size of only 78 adolescents. I do not know any pro-SSM people with even an elementary understanding of statistics who quote that study anymore.
Thanks CC for your sources. I read both of the stories taken from the Huffington Post and Time. The self-study cannot be supported (and it hasn’t for some time):
http://narth.com/docs/makesclaims.html
In regards to your comments about the Catholic Church, it is very easy for people to hate and fear what they think the Catholic Church is. [She insists upon the fullness of Christian doctrine, comfortable or uncomfortable. “Deny thyself; take up thy cross; and follow Me,” interferes too much with the comfort of the men. If Christianity demanded merely the admission of a few religious doctrines, men would not object to it. But since it imposes moral obligations difficult for human nature, it is not surprising that men refuse it in its original and austere form when they are offered a less exacting substitute with assurance that its just as good.”] (Radio Replies)
As a Catholic convert, I now this for sure: The Catholic Church is made up of men and women like you and me, full of sin, of ourselves, petty, small-hearted, less-than-sincere, miserly and tainted, but also full of grace, full of Christ, big-hearted, sincere, generous, and pure.
I concur with Kelsey and JDC. A broken clock is still right twice a day.
Vikki, CC’s hatred for the Church is the centerpiece of her social policy as well as the lens thru which she judges anything/one.
Go ahead: tell CC the Catholic Church decreed the sun is hot. Her answer will necessarily include the words “patriarchal” and “misogynistic” somewhere.
The study that “discovered” that kids in lesbian household have a 0% abuse rate is laughably biased. The Williams Institute is a pro-gay marriage research center which utilized a carefully selected sample size of only 78 adolescents.
I have a math degree, emphasis in statistics–my professors used studies like that as an example of what not to do in our own research.
Good for you, Kate! What are you doing with your math degree?
“I have a math degree, emphasis in statistics–my professors used studies like that as an example of what not to do in our own research.”
Cool. I guess that means we can ignore any data produced by pro-life groups?
You have to be a little more careful, CC. While it is true that the quote Kate mentioned talked about how the group conducting the study was pro-gay marriage, the real problem would be in the “carefully selected sample.” There is no a priori problem with the “small” sample size of 78, but the problem seems to be in the fact that it was not a random sample.
Actually, I should also mention that while it is a fallacy to ignore a study SOLELY based on WHO conducted the study, if you are able to find errors in the study (such as a non-random sample being used), the fact that those conducting the study have a specific agenda in mind helps to provide an explanation of WHY the error was made. But I do agree, if it was only “well, they’re pro-life so they have an agenda and I get to blow off everything they say” or “they’re pro-choice so they have an agenda and I get to blow off everything they say” is indeed a fallacy.
Here is another study which compared lesbian and heterosexual couples. “…no significant differences were found between dyadic adjustment of lesbian and heterosexual couples. Only in the area of parenting did the 2 groups of couples differ; lesbian couples exhibited more parenting awareness skills than did heterosexual couples. The implications of these findings are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/dev/31/1/105/
While I’m ranting, this is what I HATE about the internet. Everyone is a scholar. CC, I can’t access that article without paying $12. No one can even look at it to assess if it is a good study or not. Did you read the article? Is it the kind of scholarly work you are accustomed to? You would put your seal of approval on it? Or did you simply google “study lesbian children no significant”, look for the first article that seemed to agree with your view, and then post it here? I don’t know what we’re supposed to do with this article…
Bobby–I work at an academic library and have access to the article. Let me know if you want to exchange emails and I’ll PDF it ti you.
Sigh. I like this blog, and I adore most of the regulars here but some stuff is just offensive and half-insane. Militant homosexuality? Like…. Gay people are….. Waging a war to convert straight people or something? Lol.
SERIOUSLY wish that pro-lifers could concentrate on saving dying children rather than complaining about consenting adults living in a way that you personally don’t approve of. Kelsey put it much more eloquently and politely than I can.
Gay people are….. Waging a war to convert straight people or something? Lol.
You don’t think some gays try? LOL
Jack, I can sympathize. I love this blog, there’s just certain parts of it I don’t love. Again, I wish people would just leave the gays alone because they’re not hurting anybody.
You don’t think some gays try? LOL
I’m sure some do (you’ll certainly see the more unusual types on display at a pride parade). But most of them are just ordinary, otherwise unexceptional people.
“I do not know any pro-SSM people with even an elementary understanding of statistics who quote that study anymore.”
Adair,
meet Certifiably Crazy.
“I guess that means we can ignore any data produced by pro-life groups?”
oCCluded,
There is no ‘guessing’ about it.
You already a$$iduously avoid any data that contradicts your feminista dogma.
“I don’t know what we’re supposed to do with this article… ”
Bobby,
The same thing that ’the obamateur’ does with the constitution.
“The same thing that ’the obamateur’ does with the constitution”
Use it as toilet paper?
Exactly. It’s the fact that this wasn’t a random sample. I discount any studies that “carefully select” their subject.
Bobby, I’m starting a graduate program in mathematics this fall. I have a teaching assistantship, and assuming all goes well with that, I’m hoping to get my Ph.D. and teach at a university. Are you a mathematician?
You don’t see the connective tissue between the pro choice agenda and the gay marriage agenda? It’s all in the view of children as a Right, instead of a Gift. You can avail yourself of that right against all logic and biology. And if a child is Your Right, you can also forego it via abortion at any time along the process of development, as easily as foregoing your right to vote. Both agendas are attempting to split sexuality from marriage, and the Child from the Family.
“The Catholic Church is made up of men and women like you and me, full of sin, of ourselves, petty, small-hearted, less-than-sincere, miserly and tainted, but also full of grace, full of Christ, big-hearted, sincere, generous, and pure.”
Vikki,
A man I know said the LORD told him HE was going to send him men nobody wanted and men everybody wanted.
Years later after the word of the LORD came to pass, he realized, in retrospect, that that both groups were the same men.
I once made the observation that I was grafeful GOD chose to use ‘broken people’.
A good friend was quick to point out, “There are no other kind of people.”
LOL, I suppose you could paint the adoption industry the same way, Jamie. Child as a right, not a gift, divorced from the couple’s sexuality, and splitting the child from the natural family. :)
You do realize that the children in gay marriages are often the biological children of one of the spouses? No splitting the child from the family, nor “right” to a child, involved.
“Did God really say … ?” We often don’t understand God’s plans and in this case we use own limited wisdom to conclude that “Gay marriage doesn’t hurt anyone.” I used to think the same of premarital sex, but many of us would agree that we know differently of this. Good intentions, tolerance, and our own judgment of which rules should apply when are scary types of, dare I say, evil, that promotes our thoughts and feelings to those of God.
Whew! Haven’t been here in some time. Wonder what’s been going on. What? Militant homosexuality? Oh no! I had no idea the gays were trying to force us all to get married to a member of the same sex! Why didn’t anyone tell me before?! Egads! D:
I am a mathematician, indeed! Which grad program are you attending if you don’t mind me asking?
“Anyone who thinks that same-sex “marriage” is a benign eccentricity which won’t affect the average person should consider what it has done in Massachusetts. It’s become a hammer to force the acceptance and normalization of homosexuality on everyone. And this train is moving fast. What has happened so far is only the beginning.”
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html
Militant homosexuality? Oh no! I had no idea the gays were trying to force us all to get married to a member of the same sex!
Vannah, have you ever seen a Christian child bullied for opposing gay marriage? Maybe we could have a Day of Silence in our public schools for the bullying of Christians. Yes, it does happen.
Do you think an educator who makes a comment to special needs teens telling them that they can’t know if they are homosexual or not until they try both genders out is a militant?
Force all? No. Push their agenda on innocent kids. You bet. It’s been going on for some time now.
What’s the suicide rate of gay teens, especially boys, versus Christian teens? You wanna talk about agendas and bullying, how about making kids feel so freakish and sinful they kill themselves? It’s not okay to bully anyone, but triage, seriously.
I don’t know Jack what is it? Did you ever think that teens who kill themselves are not feeling the best about all their choices or may be victims of abuse? Earlier you talk about consenting adults but now you are referring to gay teens. For someone who states he hates that the topic is debated, you bring it up often enough. Do you expect Christians here to remain silent because it makes you uncomfortable that we believe homosexual behavior is destructive?
There is an agenda being pushed and it relates to the abortion agenda whether you want to open your eyes or not.
Would you say these boys are all homosexuals or confused kids? We do know they are not consenting adults: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/05/10/mexican-authorities-investigating-how-6th-graders-made-porn-video-inside-school/?intcmp=ob
Praxedes,
The agenda is equality, nothing more and nothing less. Should it also be wrong for schools to teach racial equality? My schools, which were a mixture of Hispanic, Anglo, and Native American students, emphasized diversity and the contributions that these cultures made to our state. We were taught about what happens when bigotry is allowed to triumph- the Holocaust, Japanese internment camps, the Jim Crow South, South African apartheid, and Rwanda. There was very much an agenda- an anti-racism one. Teachers always concluded such lessons on a sentimental note, after all. What if parents oppose such teachings? Are you going to complain about how parents’ rights are eroded in this context?
The militant anti-racism agenda is everywhere. Your children watch cartoons with ethnically diverse characters. Your children are required to read books from around the globe in school. Your children may even participate in some sort of International Day. My elementary school made us all pick a country, learn about it, and design a presentation to the class. We were taught what was beautiful about diversity. The agenda cannot be avoided! They’re just kids for crying out loud!
The United States is the melting pot. We’re the product of immigration and multiculturalism. This country represents cultures from around the globe. Hatred is wrong. The mantra is drummed into us at an early age, isn’t it? It’s militant. What if parents object?!
I think that you get the point. You don’t want to hear it, though I’m positive that you have, but here goes: You’re standing on the wrong side of history. I can’t force you to accept LGBAT men and women, but we can establish laws ensuring equality, including marriage equality.
Oh my goodness. I obviously didn’t bring up the issue, unless I posted this blog post. Sigh. Apparently I should shut up and not express my opinions about the subject, since they make you uncomfortable.
I brought up gay teens because you brought up Christians getting bullied for opposing homosexuality. First off, about 40% of gay teens attempt suicide, that rate is 4 times higher than straight kids. That’s a problem. Sure, some might be committing suicide because of abuse or other issues, but the fact that its correlated pretty strongly with anti-gay bullying (which is very prevalent, whether you acknowledge it or not) should give any caring person pause.
What is that article supposed to prove? My best guess is that one of those boys was possibly molested, and acted it out with other kids. That’s pretty common. Maybe, they got into porn and got curious. That also happens. It’s obviously a serious problem and I hope those boys get help. What you were hoping to prove, I have no idea. Unless you want to call the sexual abuse of boys by men homosexual behavior, which will genuinely make me mad, its not relevant.
PS: I lost my virginity barely older than those boys, it wasnt because anyone forced a heterosexual agenda on me. Sometimes kids do really stupid stuff.
And honestly, before you accuse me of thinking that Christians are automatically bigots simply for being opposed to homosexuality, know that I definitely do not believe that. I don’t think Carla is a bigot, I don’t think you are a bigot, and I certainly don’t think the woman I married is a bigot. I do think that fear mongering posts about “militant homosexuality” is bigoted. It encourages hate.
I seriously cannot believe I am going to admit this, I find it horrible and humiliating, but I was once genuinely a bigot against gays, especially gay men. Once, when I was sixteen, a gay guy told me I was cute at a party. I punched him in the face, that’d the only time I have ever hit anyone, ever, except in extreme self defense. I had my reasons for being screwed up in the head, but it was no excuse. Luckily, I grew up and realized I was a horrible person. So i will never stop fighting against this stuff when I see things that encourage hate against people who aren’t straight. There isn’t an excuse for it, people can believe that homosexuality is a sin without painting LGBTA folk as some evil bogeymen bent on destroying American values.
They can stick whatever they want wherever they want as long as they’re not hurting anyone.
SERIOUSLY wish that pro-lifers could concentrate on saving dying children rather than complaining about consenting adults living in a way that you personally don’t approve of.
I could say the same of you. Concentrate, Jack. Concentrate on the dying children. Don’t even read the posts about gays at Jill’s if they bother you so.
I can’t force you to accept LGBAT men and women, but we can establish laws ensuring equality, including marriage equality.
I already accept LGBAT folks, Vannah. I don’t approve of some of their behaviors (as a Christian I call it sin) so I’d appreciate your not painting me as not accepting people because I oppose some of their choices. Not fair and not accurate. Please be accepting of my diverse Christian views. Thanks.
There isn’t an excuse for it, people can believe that homosexuality is a sin without painting LGBTA folk as some evil bogeymen bent on destroying American values.
There isn’t an excuse for it, people can believe that abortion is a sin without painting women who abort as some evil bogeymen bent on destroying American values.
As a Christian, I oppose our country legalizing another sin.
There is a correlation between the gay agenda and abortion. Should three or more folks of any gender be allowed to marry? Why or why not?
I would say that gay marriage is perhaps more of a threat to the survival of a healthy society, more than even abortion. Abortion, while evil in itself, is an action, and people can be changed in response to that action. Abortion is a choice, always a wrong choice, but still, just a choice. The militant homosexual movement is just that. It’s an attack on the definition of who we are as persons, either as defined by religion, the Christian religion, or by the natural law. Homosexuality, which denies a natural order and the proper use of the body, in many ways is an affirmation of the pro-death mentality, which at its very core says, I will decide what a person is, how a person is, and when a person is and how the person is used or discarded. The re-definition of human sexuality is part and parcel to the culture of death which is hell bent on tearing apart the very fabric of society with their eugenics mindset.
Ok, whoa.
To start, SAME-SEX MARRIAGE does not threaten the sanctity of marriage at all. It is a legal bond between two people who LOVE each other and want to raise and care for a FAMILY, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. That’s it! What is so hard to understand about that!?!?
I call it same-sex marriage because “gay” marriage makes it sound like it is something different. Gay people did not wake up this morning and eat a gay breakfast. Nor did they take a gay shower, drive a gay car to gay work, or learn at a gay school in a gay classroom. Marriage is marriage.
If you are religious and believe marriage is between one man and one woman, then marry someone of the opposite sex and be HAPPY with your choice. However, just because that is your belief, DOES NOT mean you have the RIGHT to infringe your beliefs upon other people who, in this melting-pot we call AMERICA, might not not share them.
And in regards to same-sex marriage and it’s correlation to abortion, apples and oranges. Well said, Kelsey.
“I call it same-sex marriage because “gay” marriage makes it sound like it is something different. Gay people did not wake up this morning and eat a gay breakfast. Nor did they take a gay shower, drive a gay car to gay work, or learn at a gay school in a gay classroom. Marriage is marriage.”
I’ve seen this argument on facebook, and I am always shocked that people actually make it. For clearly the debate in question is whether or not there exists a marital institution between two people of teh same sex. To trivialize it like this is simply to beg the question in favor of there existing marriage between two people of teh opposite sex. So the argument is persuasive if you already believe that gay marriage exists, which is the entire question of the debate. So when you say “marriage is marriage” you are assuming that two people of teh same sex can get married, which again, is the entire point of the debate.
In comparison to abortion, suppose you are trying to convince a pro-choicer that the unborn is a human being. It would not be a good argument for a pro-lifer to give to a (scientifically illiterate) pro-choicer to say “I don’t call it a fetus or an embryo or a zygote or a blastocyst or a baby or a child or an adult- I call it a human being. Human beings are human beings.” The argument simply asserts that the unborn is human without appealing to scientific or philosophical argumentation to try and persuade the pro-choicer why the unborn is human. There is nothing in taht argument to convince an open-minded pro-choicer that teh unborn is human. It might, however (especially like the gay marriage quote above), work as a good rhetorical device to get those on your side fist pumping in agreement with you, but both lack any sort of persuasive power.
Jasper says:
“Anyone who thinks that same-sex “marriage” is a benign eccentricity which won’t affect the average person should consider what it has done in Massachusetts. It’s become a hammer to force the acceptance and normalization of homosexuality on everyone. And this train is moving fast. What has happened so far is only the beginning.”
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html
^ This is why I’m against the legalization of same-sex marriage.
Let’s remember: God gave Adam & Eve the freedom to choose BETWEEN good and evil…not to “decide what” is good or evil. Truth is not subjective. Moral relativism is not of God. Just because Steph disagrees w/ Jill DOES NOT make her right..in fact, she IS wrong….That is truth…
Why is my comment awaiting moderation?
Bobby, of course there should be a marital institution between two people of the same sex. Two people of the same sex getting married does not harm anyone, nor does it create an issue for those married in the heterosexual community.
The REAL issue, is whether or not religious bigots think that homosexuality is right and whether or not they believe that same sex couples should be granted the right to be recognized as legally married.
Just because Steph disagrees w/ Jill DOES NOT make her right..in fact, she IS wrong….That is truth…
Right, Kelly.
Lets also remember that while God gave Adam and Eve the freedom to choose blah blah, he also made Adam and Steve, and Eve and Eva.
Love, peace, and happiness to all, regardless of peoples DIFFERENCES.
“Bobby, of course there should be a marital institution between two people of the same sex.”
Please notice that I did not even make any claim to the contrary above. I simply pointed out why the “gay shower” argument is not a good one.
Good grief.
A day without being called a bigot is like a day without sunshine………..
I think it’s important for the Pro-Lifers who support gay marriage to speak out and not just avoid threads about homosexuality.
Therefore, time for my spiel:
I don’t think government entities should recognize marriage at all, because marriage is a religious/spiritual notion, and I believe in separation of church and state. I think that what we think of as the government institution of marriage should be replaced by civil unions which anyone of any gender can get. Then, people who want to actually be married can take their civil unions to religious institutions of their choice to have a marriage ceremony. Or, no religious institution at all. And any religious institution should have a right to refuse to recognize any civil union they want with a marriage ceremony.
Marriage is marriage.
Should three or more consenting adults of any genders be allowed to marry, Steph?
Do you think people who oppose legalized abortion are religious bigots as well? What about those who oppose theft? Darn religious bigots everywhere on that topic.
Why not three people of whatever sex? Four? Nine?
Folks approving gay marriage scoff at this as a paranoid “slippery slope” argument, which ironically leaves them acknowledging there’s a slope at the bottom of which there’s something they’re apparently bigoted against themselves.
If “man and woman” is a traditional construct with no absolute value, I seriously want to know what’s so sacrosanct to gay marriage advocates about the number 2. Seriously. It’s not a “slippery slope” argument, it’s saying “what the hell’s wrong with any combination and number of people who want to get ‘married’?”
Those who sneer at folks who want to see only man/woman marriage, suddenly get defensive about their own fetish with the number 2.
The number 2 makes sense for man/woman marriage. There’s a logic to it. But if we’re done with heterosexual monogamy, the issue is no longer “what’s the minimum necessary to create children naturally and have a stable nuclear family” — the issue has come to “who the hell are you to stomp on my civil rights, to do as I wish?”
Why should not a dorm room full of students be allowed to marry, in order to enjoy whatever economic benefits derive? Are they obliged to “love” each other, which is the weepy justification trotted out for gay marriage? What, now — the state is in the business of arbitrating the reasons people are allowed to marry? Whose version of “love” is going to be the shibboleth for a marriage license? Monogamous love? WHY?
Progressive abortion advocates are all celebratory about the mystery clause in PP v.Casey: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life” — but the moment polygamy comes up as a concomitant of the reduction of marriage to a civil rights issue, suddenly polygamists are scum with no right to define their own concept of existence, meaning, the universe, and I’m trying to avoid mentioning the number 42.
Permit anything or stick with one thing. Anyone advocating gay marriage but guarding the idea of monogamy, is actually more bigoted than those advocating heterosexual monogamy. Once you go anywhere appealing classical liberal notions of rights, if you don’t allow everyone to go where they wish to go (see Casey again), you’re denying to others what you appeal to for yourself.
In general, those arguing a traditional view of marriage aren’t speaking about “rights” at all. Those who wish to speak of rights damn well better not deny anyone their “right” to [insert mystery clause here].
“The number 2 makes sense for man/woman marriage. There’s a logic to it.”
There’s a logic to it period, without consideration for gender. There are documented health and social benefits to dedicated monogamous relationships, which marriage is the embodiment of. Why wouldn’t society want to encourage marriage between same-sex partners, particularly in light of the high prevalence of risky behaviors associated with gay hook-up culture? Contrast the benefits of monogamous marriage with the detrimental effect that polygamy has on women’s rights, among other things, and it should be obvious why society has a legitimate purpose in promoting one and not the other.
“In general, those arguing a traditional view of marriage aren’t speaking about “rights” at all.”
Then they’re legally illiterate and don’t have anything meaningful to contribute to the discussion, at least as far as it pertains to matrimony in the United States. Marriage has been repeatedly affirmed as a right by the Supreme Court. Of course, maybe they’re only concerned with marriage in the strictly religious sense, in which case they do not and could not have any legitimate reason to feel threatened, because no external force could ever possibly change their doctrine against their will.
I believe in equal rights for everyone. But I don’t believe in equalizing everyone’s rights. Because it’s not possible, for one thing.
The very reason for the existence of this web site is the discussion of conflicting rights. Sure, everyone should have a right to privacy - to be left alone. But not when it conflicts with another’s right to life. And you can’t sue every time someone knocks on your door or makes an unsolicited phone call.
Our government has the right to regulate certain institutions. We cannot become the parent of our neighbor’s child even if both parties preferred it. Not without a whole lot of legal doings and the relinquishing of the parent’s rights.
Just so we can’t redefine the meaning of marriage because it “feels right”. Sorry, but “same-sex marriage” is the definition of an oxymoron. Call it a relationship. Call it a partnership. But not a marriage.
We could go into the crudities of “the parts don’t fit”, jigsaw puzzle pieces, space capsules and the space station. Suffice to say marriages connote a complementary matching that we’ve always been told were the building blocks of our nation.
We better tread lightly on this, and really think it through.
I agree that that the issue of abortion is very different from the issue of same sex marriage. I think putting them together turns off people who are reachable with the pro-life message. For example, survey after survey shows that young people are both more pro-life and more accepting of same sex couples than older generations.
As to undermining “traditional underpinnings” the old way wasn’t all that great. In this country, we used to have slavery, genocide of native Americans, denial of basic rights to women, etc. What we have traditionally and still have that unfortunately neither of the duopoly parties will do much about is massive violence and imposition of things (often including tyrannies) on other nations. The idea that something that is traditional is therefore good seems to me to be very, very wrong.
joan: “ There are documented health and social benefits to dedicated monogamous relationships, which marriage is the embodiment of. ”
So documented health and social benefits are a sufficient compelling interest for the government to deny rights? Viz., if all parties in a relationship want a polygamist marriage, that right is denied THEM because of “documented health and social benefits” of monogamous marriages?
Interesting.
So since AIDS has been a documented non-benefit of homosexual behavior, the right to engage in sodomy should be denied on account of government compelling interest in the health and well-being of citizens?
Please explain how your concern may be consistently applied.
“Contrast the benefits of monogamous marriage with the detrimental effect that polygamy has on women’s rights, among other things, and it should be obvious why society has a legitimate purpose in promoting one and not the other.”
Why would you want to deny a woman something that’s a “right” as you call it (marriage) merely because her choice is to engage in polygamy?
Are you admitting that “society” has a right to tell a woman what to do against her wishes?
Interesting.
Why isn’t “society” grabbing cigarettes out of people’s mouths, joan?
Bill: “The idea that something that is traditional is therefore good seems to me to be very, very wrong.”
Hmm. There’s a difference between asserting that something is good because it’s traditional, and asserting that those who casually dismiss things that are traditional are being careless. The latter should not be mistaken for an instance of the former.
That young people are “more accepting of a thing” and therefore a pragmatic approach would suggest not ruffling their feathers, is not an especially good reason either if what they’re accepting is problematic.
^ What Rasqual said, 5/17/12, 1:18 PM.
“So documented health and social benefits are a sufficient compelling interest for the government to deny rights? Viz., if all parties in a relationship want a polygamist marriage, that right is denied THEM because of “documented health and social benefits” of monogamous marriages?”
That’s not what I said at all. The compelling state interest in forbidding polygamous marriage is a separate matter.
“So since AIDS has been a documented non-benefit of homosexual behavior, the right to engage in sodomy should be denied on account of government compelling interest in the health and well-being of citizens?”
That would probably be a key element of any legal argument made on behalf of a state law forbidding sodomy, yes (prior to Lawrence, anyway, which definitively settled the issue).
“Why would you want to deny a woman something that’s a “right” as you call it (marriage) merely because her choice is to engage in polygamy?”
Because the state’s legitimate interest in preventing the social ills associated with polygamy outweigh that right. Of course, a judge could always disagree and rule otherwise.
“Why isn’t “society” grabbing cigarettes out of people’s mouths, joan?”
Because it’s not politically viable?
Comparing abortion to gay marriage is akin to comparing abortion to tomato soup. They are that unlike.
Praxedes: “There is a correlation between the gay agenda and abortion. Should three or more folks of any gender be allowed to marry?”
Non sequitur. Still waiting for that supposed correlation.
I think it’s so sad that Marriage Equality is even an issue. Sadder still that people who are courageously fighting for the lives of the unborn use the platform given to them by the pro-life community to promote homophobia. And yes, it IS homophobic to say that gay people are not entitled to the same rights as straight people.
I’m outraged by this video, and I am outraged that it appears on a pro-life blog, so I’m posting again.:-)
. I think Jill should, in her “about” page make some reference to the fact that this blog is a “Christian” blog, that campaigns on many many issues, not just abortion.
Like it or not, the pro-life movement is on the move. I was at work last night, in a gay bar. Went for a drink afterwards and spoke about abortion with a transexual and a lesbian. The transexual was very vocal about the fact that abortion should be severely restricted. The lesbian supported an outright ban.
Putting videos like this on a “pro-life” blog isolates an entire community, discourages LGBT people from getting involved in the pro-life movement which ultimately slows down the progress we make.
The fact is, the longer abortion is acceptable (I live in Ireland where it sadly is acceptable, but thankfully still illegal) the more lives are lost. We need everyone and anyone who has an inkling to join the fight for the unborn to feel welcomed into the movement. We need as many people as possible working to stop the bloodshed, to stop the apathy, and to stop the lies.
I don’t really care what Jill, or any of you think about gay marriage, I just want you to know that using a pro-life platform to air those views turns people away from the movement. And the end result of that is more dead babies.
I <3 FreedomRed.
Erin go Bragh.
FreedomRed, I agree with most of what you said. But to be fair, this is a “Quote of the Day” entry and not a standard blog post. Posting this video as the Quote of the Day doesn’t imply endorsement by Jill. If you look through the other quotes she’s chosen, some of them are pro-life quotes that she obviously agrees with. Some are pro-choice quotes that she disagrees with, and others deal with more obscure topics that aren’t really related to the abortion issue:
https://www.jillstanek.com/2012/05/congressman-ironic-that-federal-law-protects-animals-more-than-unborn-humans/
https://www.jillstanek.com/2012/03/pro-choice-pol-pro-life-women-really-men-with-breasts/
https://www.jillstanek.com/2012/05/what-to-expect-when-youre-expecting-in-theatres-today/
All it really means is that she thinks it’s an interesting topic for discussion, not that she’s “using a pro-life platform” to “campaign” against gay marriage.
Oh, okay…thats a fair point, I didn’t realise that. It’s not very clear though.
It could certainly be better titled and categorized.
And yes, it IS homophobic to say that gay people are not entitled to the same rights as straight people.
What kind of phobia is it when you say three or more consenting adults are not entitled to the same rights as two people?
What I meant bmmg39 by correlation was that many of the same people that support changing the definition of marriage also support legalized abortion. Sorry if I didn’t elaborate or make that clearer. I realize there are also exception like my friend, X.
FreedomRed, I believe that if a headline or my views on marriage have the ability to turn away people from trying to save innocent humans, that’s on them, not on me. Your belief that the definition of marriage be changed will never have the power to turn me away from the prolife movement.
Are you gay Praxedes? Because if you’re not than of course people campaigning for, or against gay marriage isn’t that big a deal to you. You’re not the one who is being denied what others take for granted.
This video lumps together my communities struggle for equal rights with the killing of children. What’s more shocking, is that it’s done by people claiming to spread the word of God
.What kind of phobia is it when you say three or more consenting adults are not entitled to the same rights as two people?
I don’t know the answer to this. Maybe try google?
FreedomRed: “Homophobia”, like “racist”, just doesn’t have any meaning any more. They’re alike mere epithets of opprobrium, intended to impugn. They’re a rhetorical “nuclear option” — not really helpful.
Having said that, I’m sympathetic with your point about focus on a pro-life blog.
They’re alike mere epithets of opprobrium, intended to impugn. They’re a rhetorical “nuclear option” — not really helpful.
I have no clue what this sentence means. But it doesn’t matter. I’m not going to debate the rights and wrongs of Marriage Equality, Homophobia, Raciism or anything else. I’ve fallen into that trap at Lifesitenews and it got me banned.
I simply want to state that as a gay man, who is passionatly pro-life, I often feel excluded, and unwelcome in pro-life circles (both online and in reality) because of the discussion, the attitudes and the things so often said about gay rights by pro-lifers. The fact is that this makes it harder for any LGBT person to be involved in the movement, when so many of the big organisations and blogs continue to discuss these issues which have nothing to do with abortion.
I’m saying that a lot of the attitudes here, and on other pro life sites isolate LGBT pro lifers. You can choose to ignore that information if you wish.
Sorry, but you may just have to grin and bear it. I’m sure there were non-religious abolitionists who felt uncomfortable with their comrades. It’s the lot of being a minority. And we all hold minority opinions of some kind.
We’ll just have to unify on the major issue that brought us together in the first place.
Hans, really, you know I really respect you but some stuff is just not okay. Could you belong to a movement, no matter how noble, who talked about Christians the way that a lot of pro-lifers talk about gay people? If you constantly had your religion brought up when it wasn’t relevant, and heard about how you were trying to ruin American values, that your choice to be a Christian was worse than killing an unborn baby? I really doubt it. Not knocking on you, but is there any wonder that gay people don’t want anything to do with the mainstream pro-life movement? It’s not that they are uncomfortable being a minority, its that they.are fairly constantly smacked on.
I’m sorry you feel alienated by the pro-life movement FreedomRed. I hope you realize that there are plenty of pro-lifers who are pro-gay rights and accept you for sure.
Thanks Jack, I do of course realise there are lots of pro-gay people in the movement. And a lot of gay pro lifers. It just makes me SOOOOO mad to have to read about how “militants are trying to normalise homosexuality” and the like when I”m on a site looking for pro life news.
It’s sickening. But i’m made of stern stuff :-)
FR: “I’m saying that a lot of the attitudes here, and on other pro life sites isolate LGBT pro lifers. You can choose to ignore that information if you wish.”
I think the portion of my remark you did understand was more clear, right?
“I’m sympathetic with your point about focus on a pro-life blog.”
Yes that bit was clear. Anyway, since I’m here can I get you all to go to http://www.stopeugenicsnow.org and sign the petition.
It’s a case that has received VERY little coverage, possibly possibly because it has little chance of succeeding, Im not sure, I’m no lawyer.
Basically this woman is taking the Latvian government to ECHR (European Court of Human Rights) because she gave birth to a Down Syndrome child and wasn’t offered screening before the birth.
Her lawyers are arguing that it is a human right to be told if your child has Downs Syndrome before it’s born, and we all know where that road leads to.
The Latvian Government are fighting the case, and many European and International organisations are supporting the Stop Eugenics campaign including Down Syndrome Ireland.
Maybe I missed the coverage, but Im on pro life sites a lot and have seen very little mention, so if you haven’t already, PLEASE go to http://www.stopeugenicsnow.org and add your name to support the Latvian Government in this case. And spread the word. The European Court of Human Rights must get the message loud and clear. Aborting a child because of Down Syndrome is NOT a fundamental human right!
PLEASE sign.
A big gay kiss to all of you that do :-)
Thanks for the link!
Keep the kiss, ya doof. ;-)
Jack,
I would never say that someone’s choice to be gay was worse than killing babies, to circle back on your comment. It’s just that the majority in the movement are Christian, and they’re taught that a whole lot of things are sins besides abortion.
That said, I agree we should keep focussed and keep other social and political topics to the side. But it’s a wide world, and everything has its interest.
Being gay isn’t a choice. Certain actions associated with it might be, but people don’t generally choose the orientation itself. But I’m glad you at least have your priorities right, even though we disagree here.
The logical conclusion to repeating the accusation that homosexuality threatens the status quo, isn’t normal and is morally repugnant.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2147385/Horrific-moment-thugs-attack-head-gay-rights-group-Ukraine-forced-cancel-parade-hijacked-neo-Nazi-zealots.html
If you spread fear and ignorance, ignorant people will become frightened, and fight back. Everything we say and do has consequences, if your words to your children are not words of love and acceptance then don’t be surprised if this is how they behave.
FreedomRed: Millions of Americans believe that homosexuality is a disorder. Very few have ever, or will ever, be violent with gays — any more than they’re violent with anyone else they consider disordered.
Would you say that “The logical conclusion to repeating the accusation that abortion destroys human life, isn’t normal and is morally repugnant”? If you were interested in consistency, I think you would. And yet, likewise, those who are pro-life aren’t off being violent.
What “logically” follows from what troubles you doesn’t seem to follow for many other people. And honestly, I don’t think neo-Nazis would find much pity in court if they blamed other people’s beliefs or rhetoric for their actions — nor should they. Once we begin excusing vile acts on the basis of some “the devil made me do it!” claim, the jig’s up.
“Millions of Americans believe that homosexuality is a disorder. Very few have ever, or will ever, be violent with gays — any more than they’re violent with anyone else they consider disordered.”
That’s true, but very few of them would find it acceptable to speak of other people with disorders the way this man speaks of homosexuals.
What else do millions of Americans consider a disorder? Bi-Polar? I’ve never heard of anyone described as “Militant Bi-Polar” or “Militant Schizophrenic”.
That in itself is violent language no? So even with the truly shocking and depressing fact that millions of Americans consider homosexuality a disorder it’s clear homosexuals are regarded differently to people with other disorders.
Most people here find abortion morally repugnant, but they would never tolerate the word “abnormal” being used to describe a woman who had an abortion.
My point is that EVEN IF millions of Americans (through, lets be honest, their Christian faith) believe Homosexuality to be a disorder, there is a distinct lack of compassion, respect or acceptance. By and large to these people we are seen as monsters.
The man in this video, this CATHOLIC video used the words “Militant homosexuals” to describe people who want to be equal under the law. You can disagree with Marriage Equality, but to describe the people who disagree with you as “militant” is not the language of love and understanding, it is not the message of Jesus as I understand it.
The man in video, this CATHOLIC video said that people like me wanted to be
“… treated as though our sexual appetites are just as valid and normal as yours”
Notice he said “Sexual Appetite” not “relationship” – it is, of course all about sex when it comes to gays.
We’re all reminded of the few bad apples in the pro-life movement who are violent, the fact that the vast majority of pro life groups speak of people who have had abortions with compassion and respect means there’s not much of a case to answer for the movement as a whole.
But make no mistake, the language by A LOT of pro life people about gays is at best disrespectful, at worst violent, hateful and downright venomous.
Whatever the man in the video may think, I AM normal, I AM created by the same God that created him, I am loved, I am worthy of equal rights, My relationship IS valid.
The only reason these thugs beat up this man was because, somewhere along the line they got the message that it was okay to do. They perceive this man as a threat, and they attack.
Everyone has to look at the language they use, because words are powerful.
Like I said, spreading a message of ignorance and hate, will lead ignorant people to be hateful.
Yes, there are studies available that show violence between same sex couples. For example, research going back to 2002 (Steinmetz & Lucca) shows that physical abuse among lesbian partners was 35.4%, compared to 20.4% among women living with male partners.
Further, Statistics Canada, Canada’s National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005, found that violence among homosexual couples is two to three times more common than among straight couples. Also, the American College of pediatricians found that “Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages, with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years.”
Vernon J. Geberth, M.S., M.P.S. who is a former commander of Bronx homicide for the New York City Police Department stated as far back as 995 that homicidees committed among homosexual were “relatively common,” and these murders may involve male victims murdered by other males or may involve female victims who are in some type of lesbian relationship and they are murdered by another female.
This should not surprise anyone who has conducted an indepth study of the homosexual movement. Homosexuals tend to be more self-obseessed about their sexuality, and are very narcissistic about their physical appearence and more promiscuous in their sex lives than heterosexuals. Violence within the GBLT community is often much for brutal than violence foung in heterosexual relationships, given the strong jealousy factor among homosexuals regarding multiple sex partners. Such activity often involves multiple partners in bath houses or homosexual meeting places, “bug parties,” sadomasochistic acts and a high degree of unprotected oral & anal sex are all contributing factors that has led to a 61% HIV/AIDS infection rate among homosexual & bisexual men in the USA, in spite of the fact that they are a mere 2% of the population. The CDC (Center for Disease Control and prevention) stated in a 2011 survey that, in spite of the (known) high rate of HIV/AIDS thast have already been diagnosed among homosexual and bisexual men in the USA, another one-third of homosexual & bisexual men are currently infected, but do not yet know it. A 2006 survey by The Advocate, a homosexual magazine, revealed that promiscuity is a reality among homosexuals. The poll found that 20% of homosexuals said they had had 51-300 different sex partners in their lifetime, with an additional 8% having had more than 300. Almost all interviewees who responded to the poll stated that they preferred unprotected sex as it was more “pleasurable.” These are shocking figures for such a small segment of the population, upon which tens of millions of dollars have been spent on promoting “safe sex.”
Also, in those countries where same-sex marriages or unions are legal, and where there is virtually no discrimination, GBLTs still suffer from mental illness, addiction problems, poor health, shorter lifespans, and higher incidences of suicide. Indeed, relatively few same-sex couples actually tie the knot, preferring instead to live lives that are marked by sexual promiscuity or in “open” relationships.
This brings us back to the question – is homosexuality and related issues a mental illness? In the November, 2004 issue of First Things Magazine, Dr. Paul McHugh, psychiatrist-in-chief at John Hopkins University interviewed many men who sought gender reassignment surgery. Many of these individuals claimed to be “lesbians,” who found women sexually attractive. Others were “guilt-ridden homosexual men” who thought being female would resolve that problem. When Dr. McHugh re-interviewed many of the patients, he found that few regretted the change, but “in every other respect, they were little changed in their psychological condition. They had much the same problems with relationships, work and emotions as before.”
In the end, Dr. Hughes and his team ultimately decided to stop doing the sex reassignment surgeries. Their conclusion was “that Hopkins was fundamentally cooperating with a mental illness. We psychiatrists, I thought, would do better to concentrate on trying to fix their minds and not their genitalia.”
This is the heart of the issue. Homosexuality is STILL a mental disorder. It was not until 1973 that the American Psychiastric Association caved in to the threats, intimidation and eventually infiltration by militant homosexuals and dropped their listing of homosexuality as a mental disorder. Today, most psychologists and psychiatrists follow suit – not because they truly believe that same-sex relationships and transgenderism are normal, alternative lifestyles – but to publicly question this would end their careers.
The entire homosexual movement has been marked by breaking down heterosexual community under the disguise of “equality.” Those who dare to speak out are silenced by threats, intimidation, or labelled as “bigots, haters and homophobes.” One has to wonder just how such a tiny minority group of people have achieved such enormous political power. Public officials, politicians, and movie stars MUST speak out in favour of “gay rights” if they want their careers to move forward. Unspeakable individuals like “Perez Hilton” (Mario Armando Lavandeira Jr) and Dan Savage, neither who have acheived anything of note in their lives, regularly appear on national TV and throw the most shocking abuse at opponents of same-sex “marriage,” especially Christians.
A long and ugly war continues to be waged upon everything that we baby boomers knew to be normal, acceptable and right. Giving equal opportunities ans civil rights to GBLTs is one thing, but changing the very definition of marriage (the last heterosexual tradition that homosexuals are determined to destroy) simply to legitimize their lifestyle under the disguise of “equality” is quite another.
I often wonder where it will all end.
Jaw hits the floor. Nothing left to say I guess…except I’m dying to know what a Militant homosexual is. I keep hearing about it here, I’d love to know what one is.
“ I’m dying to know what a Militant homosexual is”
Same here. My best guess is a homosexual who happens to be a member of the armed forces. That may sound lame but its the best i got.