Stanek weekend question: Why are social conservatives losing the gay debate but winning the pro-life debate?
Are social conservatives losing the gay debate but winning the pro-life debate? If so, why? And does this really matter to pro-lifers?
Conservative politico Matt Lewis wrote at Politics Daily on December 10:
Social conservative groups… don’t have the juice they used to. Nobody on the right wants to admit this publicly, but they’ve lost clout in recent years….
The immediate push-back from conservatives is not simply to concede the diminished stature of social conservatism, but to explain it away, arguing that issues are cyclical – that times have simply changed the focus to a different set of issues (in this case, the economy and security)….
Dismissing the decline of social conservatism by saying the times have changed also lets social conservative leaders off the hook. The truth is that, for a variety of reasons, most social conservative organizations are simply not as efficient or effective as their counterparts.
Think of it this way: If you are a Republican politician who votes for a tax increase, you’re probably toast. People are afraid of fiscally conservative groups like the Club for Growth. Those groups put real money into primaries.
Is anybody afraid of social conservatives these days? I don’t think so….
These days, social conservative groups have few carrots and even fewer sticks.
Of course, it could be that the issue isn’t that social conservatives are losing across the board, but rather that they simply lost on one of their core concerns – the gay issue.
As Reagan biographer Craig Shirley told me:
Social issues will never go away, however, and according to polling, the pro-life position has made dramatic gains in the last several years….
As I’ve noted before, conservatives ranging from Ann Coulter to Tucker Carlson to Grover Norquist have affiliated themselves to one degree or another with gay groups, and have faced little in the way of punishment for their moves.
As Shirley stated, the pro-life issue appears to be alive and well, and in fact, while young people appear to be more open to gay marriage, they also tend to be more pro-life. This is politically significant when you consider that the modern GOP didn’t realize electoral success until after pro-lifers were incorporated into the coalition.
The weekend questions again: Are social conservatives losing the gay debate but winning the pro-life debate? If so, why? And does this really matter to pro-lifers?
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.
Looking at the issues in practical terms, social conservatives are losing both. When the only successes that a 40-year-old movement can point to are a few recent polls showing a temporary uptick in people who find abortion icky (but a huge majority of whom still want it to remain legal in some form), not even enough to establish any kind of long-term trend, I find that you really have to grasp at straws to call that “winning a debate”.
I think the simple answer is, the US is growing more secular. People go to church less frequently and claim no religion more often. And while there are a number of excellent secular reasons to oppose abortion, there aren’t really any great secular reasons to oppose homosexuality. And I’m saying this as a Christian. A Christian who doesn’t believe any part of the Bible is there by mistake, even. But, from a thoroughly secular point of view, every argument we use to oppose abortion can be used exactly the same way to support gay marriage. Which, logically, suggests that more people are doing just that since they are more sincerely pro-life and are applying that to their views.
And no, I don’t think that this is going to bring the pro-life movement crashing down around our ears, assuming that there isn’t a lot of fighting and name-calling about it. Already there are groups like PLAGAL, and I think we can expect either more such groups to materialize or the existing groups to grow. Or both. As more people come to oppose abortion, and as more people come to support gays, that there will be more people who do both is inevitable.
When one looks at the surge in young faces at the March for Life and the sheer numbers of folks in the majority that now claim to be prolife NO EXCEPTIONS we are winning the war for hearts and minds.
Every mother and child saved from abortion outside of a mill is A VICTORY!!
Abortion is killing and unless someone just refuses to see it that way, it’s an easy debate to win. Gay marriage isn’t killing and the argument that we should “live and let live” makes sense to people. I will always vote consistent with my beliefs, and my belief is that marriage is a sacrament. However, we already allow non-sacramental marriage/divorce/living together etc. all over our society so really it’s understandable that if we are going to allow all that, we should allow gay marriage too. I can see both sides from a legal standpoint…then again I actually think I’d support NO GOVERNMENT involvement in marriage at all. The legal aspect is nothing more than for tax or other monetary purposes (i.e. benefits not to be confused with rights).
It matters in a number of ways I suppose. That’s a matter for speculation, but my own guess would be that it matters in the sense of: if we lost on contraception, we’re losing on homosexuality, then abortion will be next.
Abortion is a much easier context to frame. For one thing, we are able to reduce it to simple arguments. ”[to a pro-choicer] If you can convince me that the unborn do not deserve human rights, I will back off.” (for more, see: Klusendorf) Second, the morality of the action and its ties to legal license are inextricably tied. For instance, if the conservatives were to be proven wrong on the morality of abortion, our argument for its illegality would fall apart. Conversely, if one is convinced of its IMmorality, the natural conclusion of such a viewpoint must be that it should be illegal in all but the most rare and emotionally-complicated situations.
Now compare this to homosexuality. For one, nobody is convinced of the origins of the phenomenon – genetics, choice, environment – so it’s kind of like fighting a ghost. There’s nothing simple about it.
Second, and more importantly, the morality of the action and the argument for its illegality are NOT inextricably tied. Apologies to those who disagree, but even the most conservative people I know that oppose the behavior would not go so far as to argue that there should be criminal penalties for engaging in it in a consensual fashion with another adult.
The issues are far more complex and nuanced. This splits the conservatives, and allows them to frame the debate.
I’ll give you an example, because I just had this conversation with my brother and girlfriend, who recently expressed their support for civil unions, despite being very-much conservative in general. They are of the opinion that homosexuality is a combination of nature and nurture (therefore not a conscious choice). They have been convinced by others that to not allow them to also enter into a marriage would be discriminatory and wrong. In this situation, they get LOST in the nuance. They misunderstand the purpose of civil marriage, which is not a matter of Constitutional protection; it is the state’s blessing on a particular type of relationship. The State of Illinois now promotes that type of relationship, whereas before it was neutral.
We’re “losing” because we’re confused as a group.
“They misunderstand the purpose of civil marriage, which is not a matter of Constitutional protection”
That is incorrect. The Supreme Court has recognized marriage to be a fundamental, constitutional right on a number of occasions.
This is a trend toward expanding rights for the unborn or for the LGBT community. Hopefully this is a wake-up call to gay-rights groups that they should embrace rights for the unborn and to multi-issue, pro-life groups to be more accepting.
Save for Joan’s, the comments are excellent and well thought out. This conversation is educating me. Thanks, and keep ’em coming.
One thought I have is that once matrimony ceased to be “holy” and a covenant involving God, that it should only involve a man and woman lost its power.
Another thought I have is that recreational sex outside of marriage has also caused the marital oath to lose its power.
And following that, once the sex act was separated from the possibility and welcome acceptance of miraculously creating children, marriage lost its power.
Also, that marriage is uniquely qualified as the precursor for having children has also lost its power. Even though statistics show children thrive best in this environment, much of our culture is unaware or has ceased to care.
All of these facts make it more difficult for today’s society to oppose homosexual unions or marriage.
Jill – I have been bothered by this very problem recently and I shared my concerns with my pastor. The following is the letter I sent him:
Dear Pastor,
I am very much enjoying your series of sermons on the 10 Commandments. In anticipation of the commandment You Shall Not Commit Adultery, I am wondering if within that sermon you will be addressing the issue of homosexuality. Now that I have been enjoying the Town Square that is Facebook, I have had the opportunity to dialogue with friends and family members, Christian and unbeliever, and even though most folks would rather that Facebook always be a “happy place” for inert comments, I have used it to make the best of my First Amendment rights. Mostly I transport articles from my favorite blogs and most of these posts apply to the current moral climate in the country. The abortion issue is always controversial, but I find the pro-aborts rarely mount an argument for lack of a grasp on how to defend the death of a human. Their attempts at justifying abortion based on the right to do with one’s body what one wants mostly come off as a type of arrested development temper tantrum. However, when I have posted articles that condemn homosexuality and oppose Same-Sex Marriage, I am met with a certain energy and animosity that at first surprised me. I have taken a pummeling or two in defense of traditional marriage and my newsfeed has a daily reminder of those that have joined the group 1 Million Strong for Same- Sex Marriage Throughout the Entire United States. Some of these folks claim to be Christians and I do not challenge them on that claim, but most are attendees at liberal mainline churches. Their belief system is watered down at best.
What I have noticed in general these days is a shrinking Christian presence in the debate over Same-Sex Marriage. There are Christian organizations out there committed to opposing the change in law, but most Christians I have observed are just plain scared to have this conversation with the very passionate opponents. Back to Facebook – some Christians do engage on abortion and others do engage on the global warming debate, but they become invisible when the subject is gay rights. I contend most Christians do not know how to make a case against Same-Sex Marriage from a biblical, historical or civil position. I am suggesting that maybe we, as a congregation, need in depth instruction on the basic points of mounting a biblically and historically based argument against legalizing perversity. By observing the reticence of individual Christians in taking on the controversy, I am feeling in my bones the knees of the Evangelical Church starting to weaken. If laws are enacted curbing our right to speak out against so-called Gay Rights, I believe the Evangelical Churches may buckle.
Given the type of vitriol I have experienced lately, I may just be experiencing some temporary insecurity, but I would like to know your thoughts.
Thanks,
Gina
I don’t think it helps when the group in question claims they like to be the way they are. It would be a lot harder to make the case against abortion if the babies said to the press, “We want to be killed”.
Another connection could be made to rampant use of contraceptives. Once you disconnect the procreative aspect of sex from the unitive, then there is no really good argument against homosexuality.
People also don’t really think through things very well. They typically would say that it’s a private choice between 2 adults. But that private choice carries significant health risks, that lead to significant health costs that we all end up paying for in our premiums.
Jill,
I just read your comment above mine and those are my thoughts EXACTLY!
Marriage is not a Sacrament in most churches and therefore has lost the element of holiness and even mystery. It is no longer thought of as a picture of Christ’s love for His church. In our Evangelical zeal for eliminating centuries of superstitions that made their way into the Christian belief system, we have thrown the baby out with the bath water and have reduced marriage to a civil arrangement only.
I agree 100% with Alice.
I gave a talk at Liberty University that touched on this, if anyone’s interested: http://secularprolife.org/video?v=17258947
As others have suggested, abortion is clearly the more heinous act in most people’s eyes.
Most Americans today lack the spiritual discernment to to understand the depravity of the homosexual act in God’s eyes. Nor do they understand the depth of His Love and Compassion for all sinners, especially homosexuals, and how desperately He wishes they would repent.
God is holy. He is also compassionate and merciful. But we cannot ask Him to be less than who He is.
He has made it clear in His Word: Abortion (murder) and homosexuality are sins. The soul that sins shall surely die.
But God is pro-choice: ”See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. 16 For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess. But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, 18 I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess. This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live 20 and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the Lord is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. De 30.15-20
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” Jn 3.16
Jesus came to save lost, dying, sighing, crying humanity. It is our choice whether or not we turn from our sin and receive his free gift of salvation.
joan 9:19am
Where does the Constitution say anything specifically about marriage? As for the SCOTUS finding marriage a “constitutional right”, keep in mind that SCOTUS justices also found “justification” for segregation and the WW2 imprisonment of thousands of Japanese-American citizens in the US Constitution as well.
Justices are as human and biased as we all are and their decisions are not divinely inspired. They can and have “found” in the Constitution whatever serves their purpose.
Jill, Everyone,
Did you see the WSJ’s article this weekend. It goes with this topic and it’s horrifying.
“ASSEMBLING THE GLOBAL BABY”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703493504576007774155273928.html
It’s worth the read. Someone explain how this isn’t slavery. “I want a human being so I’ll go buy one.”
It’s relevant here because it ties into gay marriage AND abortion…and generally the attitude of “it’s all about what I want and how I feel” which is what happens when there is no moral core to society anymore.
“Where does the Constitution say anything specifically about marriage? As for the SCOTUS finding marriage a “constitutional right”, keep in mind that SCOTUS justices also found “justification” for segregation and the WW2 imprisonment of thousands of Japanese-American citizens in the US Constitution as well.
Justices are as human and biased as we all are and their decisions are not divinely inspired. They can and have “found” in the Constitution whatever serves their purpose.”
You’re missing the point. The Supreme Court is the last word on constitutional interpretation. If they say that something is a constitutional right, then it’s a constitutional right. You can disagree with their reasoning but the legal outcome is what it is.
The millennials are more in favor of LGBT rights than their elders, and also more accepting of racial diversity. Perhaps they see abortion as discrimination against young human beings and oppose it for the same reason that they oppose discrimination against sexual or racial minorities.
The Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that racial restrictions on marriage were unconstitutional. That was an equal protection issue. But if the government were to step out of marriage altogether, as Stacy suggests, I don’t think that would be a violation of anyone’s constitutional rights.
Personally I believe human sexuality is a continuum with no defined boundaries. We can have very feminine gay women and very unfeminine straight women. People can be attracted to members of the same/opposite sex and form very close nonsexual bonds. I am a very great admirer and am drawn to female beauty. I have no desire to sleep with women. The most “manly” man may be attempting to suppress his desire to be a woman. It goes on and on.
As for marriage, it was not always a religious sacrament, but rather a civil matter. Marriage throughout history and the world has had no specific boundaries or definition, but has been culturally and religiously defined. Marriages were for love, they were for money, they were for convenience, a way to unload unwanted daughters, and to cement political bonds.
Men could take second wives. They could have harems. They could sleep with the slave women. In the Bible, didn’t Abraham sleep with his wife and half sister Sara’s maidservent? Some say she was taken as a “second wife” or was this just being a little more respectful of people’s sensibilities here?
Marriages have always been troubled, unhappy, broken up. Wealthy men and royalty were expected to have their mistresses. Poorer men visited the whorehouses and street corners.
Does anyone really think the marriage of Lady Diana and Prince Charles was anything other than an arranged marriage that ended tragically?
Throughout history marriage served various purposes but human nature all too often prevailed. My purpose is not to debate religion but to point out that the Bible contains instances of incest and adultery. One man and one woman was not always the rule.
Last night I watched ABC’s “What Would You Do?” where they wondered what people would do if a parent was berating their child, who came out as gay in a public coffee house.
I don’t have a good answer for “what I would do” or what would I say if I had a child who said they were gay. I don’t think berating them in public, or even discussing it in public, would be my modus operandi. I think I would let them know that I love them and want to continue the conversation later.
A lot of grief was portayed over an implied “lack of love”.
But…what if my child came out as an adulterer? How about a chronic one-night stander? (they used to call that “fornication”) How about addicted to pornography? What if he was sexually attracked to children? How about bestiality? What if he came out as being bi-sexual and/or attracted to group sex?
Would we still love a child, who is or has been involved in any of the above?
Of course!!!
Would we condone the behavior? Isn’t this “just the way God made them?”.
Would we try to understand and be accepting? Should we?
Hi Michigan_Pat,
How does my co-worker feel? Her only child will spend many years in prison. How did the parents of the Manson family killers feel?
I suspect my nephew is gay, and there is not a more devoted son, grandson, brother, and nephew on this planet. If grandma needs a ride or help with arranging a trip, we know exactly who to call.
Which would any of us prefer as a child?
As for publicly berating a child, that is unacceptable for any reason. Take it home.
Stacy, that WSJ article was indeed horrifying. It appears a Pandora’s Box has been opened.
@Joan and @Mary:
Joan is correct that the right to marriage is constitutionally protected. SCOTUS in Skinner v. Oklahoma held that “marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.” (This case dealt with an OK statute that provided for compulsory sterilization of persons who committed three felonies involving crimes of “moral turpitude.”) Keep in mind, however, that the issue in this case was procreation. Advocates of same-sex marriage, however, separate marriage from procreation. Skinner doesn’t support a right to marriage between persons who are intrinsically incapable of procreating with each other.
Hi Courtney,
I didn’t question the ruling, I asked where in the Constitution is anything said about marriage. SCOTUS justices have a long history of making ruling based on little more than personal biases and not on what the Constitution actually says.
Skinner doesn’t support a right to marriage between persons who are intrinsically incapable of procreating with each other.
What about couples who marry past childbearing age. Those who are physically challenged or suffer a genetic disorder that makes reproduction impossible. I knew a nurse who decided not to have children because a serious genetic disorder runs in her family. What about couples with physical challenges that make reproduction impossible. What about couples who discover their infertility after they marry?
Mary,
I’m sure your nephew is a wonderful person, like many people we may know and admire for their kindness and generosity.
But that doesn’t change the fact that God has concluded us all under sin. We all miss the mark of His glory. There are many former homosexuals who have come out of that lifestyle with the help of ministries like Exodus International.
I also believe there is a continuum of masculinity and femininity but unfortunately, a women’s perceived masculinity or a man’s perceived femininity does not give that person a free pass when it comes to obeying God’s Commandments. I believe I read somewhere, (I’d have to double check a couple sources to confirm where) but many of those who have left the homosexual lifestyle over time become more masculine or feminine according to their God given gender.
Hi Ed,
While I certainly respect your religious convictions I just don’t believe the human brain works in such a manner that sexuality exists in clearly defined boundaries.
What is feminine or masculine is culturally defined, not biologically determined.
In some cultures women took on the “masculine” role of warriors and were respected as military leaders. Our forefathers wore powdered wigs and ruffled shirts.
Was this offensive to God?
Hey Mary,
I’m not a biologist. We might have to request the help of Dr Nadal :-)
But I was under the impression that studies had been done that showed higher levels of estrogen in feminine men and alternately testosterone in women that were not your stereotypical “girly girls”. But I never searched it out personally and it could be an old wives tale. What I was implying was that I thought I had read that changes in attitude and behavior can actually effect changes in hormone levels. Not unlike the biochemical changes effected by the stressed out business man who gives himself an ulcer but then learns to relax.
As far as assuming a militant role, I believe that matters very much to God. Not with respect to gender, but according to the justness of the cause. You for example are a great champion for the defense and protection of preborn children. Bravo!
As far as fashion is concerned, I believe God is much more concerned with the attitude of our hearts.
I’m sorry I’ve got to run now Mary, but I’ll check the thread later.
Peace
Marriage is no longer seen as a covenant – we don’t even really know what that word means.
Pro-creation is an act critical to society, but it’s been struck at by two distinct social issues: abortion and gay marriage.
With abortion – the woman has the choice of whether to procreate or not. Violence is used as a solution, and ultimately the control of that violence shifts to others (state – as in China)
With gay marriage – the man has the choice of rejecting all social pressure to procreate without that act being an actual sacrifice. (Celibacy).
With gay marriage – if one sex is not necessary for procreation, then neither is the other – the two homogenous pairs cancel out the special nature of the heterosexual pair. In short – gay marriage legally establishes a marketplace for humanity. (A 3rd party is always necessary for children because the gay couple are naturally sterile.) Therefore gay marriage is a profitable enterprise.
I came to these conclusions several years ago after studying the issue in-depth.
Stacy – that WSJ is just the tip of the iceberg.
Just take the converse position of balance: What would the consequences be if a population were 97% gay and 3% heterosexual?
Marriage is about effect – not affection. As the Lord said: My people suffer for lack of knowledge.
Hi Ed 12:16PM,
Not a problem Ed. Biologists debate this and there is just no set answer. Studies will do what they have always done, present evidence but give no conlusive answer.
My only point was that what is a masculine or feminine role is cultural and has changed over the centuries and will continue to.
BTW, concerning the “feminine” figure. The concept of the “female figure” consisting of a small waistline, and well endowed upper and lower portions is fairly recent, like within the past few hundred years. Ever notice the early statues and paintings where women looked like men with two small bumps put on their chests? Well, that’s the female form that was considered “feminine” and beautiful and would have had your male ancestors drooling. Modern day playboy bunnies would not have tripped their triggers in the least, in fact they would have been considered bizarre aberrations of womanhood. Just a point as to how concepts of beauty and what is masculine and feminine change.
I was definitely born after my time :)
Hi Chris,
I have to wonder if marriage was ever a covenant or a means of passing on wealth and power, producing children within a family unit, and giving society some sense of stability. Some cultures have a stronger sense of family than others, but dad may have the right to more than one wife or it may be considered acceptable for him to seek pleasure elsewhere. There’s a reason prostitution is the world’s oldest profession and marriage has apparently done nothing to put them out of business.
But if the government were to step out of marriage altogether, as Stacy suggests, I don’t think that would be a violation of anyone’s constitutional rights.
I don’t think it would either, but the entire field of family law would be turned upside down. So would tax law and wills and estates, on some level. Very few lawyers, judges, or government figures would ever advocate it. Aside from whatever religious connotations it has or doesn’t have, marriage provides a lot of social and legal stability.
What if he came out as being bi-sexual and/or attracted to group sex?
First, it’s bisexual, not bi-sexual. If he were bisexual and not into group sex or polyamorous relationships, he could end up married to a woman or in a stable, monogamous relationship with a man.
I know this makes me a minority on this site, but I’m glad the public as a whole is becoming more pro-life and less against homosexuality/bisexuality at the same time. I’ve spent years putting up with anti-pro-life comments in some GLBT activist circles and putting up with anti-gay/anti-bisexual comments in pro-life circles.
I think pro-life and pro-GLBT sentiments are rising at the same time because people are realizing that abortion is about dead babies and GLBT people – now more out of the closet than ever – are human beings with feelings who want love like everyone else. Besides, pretty much all arguments about why two people of the same gender shouldn’t have sex are religiously-based, whereas the fact that abortion kills babies is just pure science.
Marauder’s got it taken care of here. I can go back to work. ;P
The answer to this weekend question is:
It’s all about human rights, baby, and homosexuals and fetal humans are equally people.
Pondering the question again, I think it may start from an incorrect premise. I wonder if social conservatives really are winning the pro-life debate among young people. That is, are young people pro-life for conservative reasons? Those of you who identify as conservatives: do you think that being pro-life is part and parcel of a particular conservative view of sexuality that says that sexuality should always occur within marriage and be open to procreation? If so, do you think that pro-life people who reject that view of sexuality and are pro-life for other reasons can really be considered socially conservative on this subject?
Mary – all vows have the “til death do us part”. Imagine of you went to divorce and the moment you did – both of you died. That’s really what it means to become one with each other.
Every relationship other than the one-man-one woman until death produces deteriorating side-effects. Others may think this is subjective – but effects tend to be quite factual (objective).
Yes – there is a faith component to it. But that faith is founded on solid evidence. Everything else is just self-deception (and bits and pieces of real love).
Marauder,
<I don’t think it would either, but the entire field of family law would be turned upside down.>
I’m just pushing the thought, but why and how? Should we have so many lawyers involved now?
Jill, directly to your question-
When we as a culture separated life and love in the marital act, marriage did lose some of its uniqueness and power. By embracing contraception (rather than generous and responsible forms of spacing) we basically said that we get to define marriage to exclude children, that the procreation of children isn’t really an essential component to marriage.
Then comes along a group of people that understandably says, hey, if the possibility of children isn’t an essential component of marriage, what about us? Why aren’t our relationships on the level of your relationships?
In worldly terms we see this makes sense. In eternal terms, I’m afraid Christians have gone a long way toward breaking something beautiful that God has given us. Many Christians point at other groups and non-Christians when it comes to repentance. In the area of divorce, contraception, and breaking marriage, we need a long look in the mirror. I take no pleasure in saying this, but SSM advocates are walking through a door that (most) Christians opened when they turned away from biblical teaching.
Social conservatism is stupid. It shows a lack of understanding about reality,and gross intolerance.Social conservatives tend to be the worst busybodies.They want every one to follow their rigid views of morality,and think they have the right to pry into other people’s bedrooms and private lives.
For social conservatives,the unborn have rights-until they are born! Then, it’s “You’re on your own,kid”. Social conservatives don’t want any one to be homosexual,as if this were any of their business. They want to take rights away and in some cases even want to persecute people who have never hurt them andare not a threat to them or any one else,buecause of what they do in private.They foolishly think that homosexuality is a “choice”,and that you can make gay people heterosexual,which has been proven to be absolutely false. They think that the unhappiness and high suicide rates among homosexuals are the result of their homosexuality, rather than the intolerance and hate they face,which is the real reason.
Social conservatives who are opposed to contraception are just plain stupid.They don’t realize that contraceptives have prevented countless abortions over the years.
All their arguments against contraception are not only false, but asinine.
They don’t realize that one reason abortion is common is because people either don’t have access to contraceptives in poor countries, or are simply too foolish and irresponsible to use them. The claim that contraceptives have merely led to more sexual promiscuity and more abortions is laughable.
These people don[t realize that it is absolutely impossible and stupidly unrealistic to expect all people to have sex only within marriage,not to use contraceptives,and not to have any abortions. They can’t mind their own business.
I’m just pushing the thought, but why and how? Should we have so many lawyers involved now?
It’s not even just lawyers – it’s day-to-day living.
If a man and a woman are married and they have a baby, that baby is their legal child as well as their biological child because they’re married. If it’s not the man’s biological child, it would still be his legal child unless the court ordered or was presented with a DNA test. When couples get divorced, there’s the automatic assumption that each parent – not grandfather, aunt, or friend of the family – has a legal right to custody and/or visitation of the children, unless they’re somehow unfit. Kids need the permission of a parent or guardian to go on school field trips or have a kidney transplant. If two people are married and one of them dies without a will, the other will automatically inherit the deceased’s entire estate and not have to pay an inheritance tax.
If the government decided tomorrow that they were no longer going to be involved in family matters, everything would collapse. There would be no legal obligation for parents to provide for their minor children. There would be no legal division of assets when a couple split up, because they would have no legal relationship to each other. If a couple is married and one half of the couple doesn’t work, the working half is expected to provide for the non-working spouse. With no legal relationship between them, the working half could decide one day, “You know, I think I’m going to spend two months on vacation in Florida and buy five new cars – you’re on your own for money” and the non-working spouse would have no legal recourse. Possible scenarios…
Wronged Wife: Your Honor, he hoards all his money and won’t give me anything to buy new clothes to replace the rags I’m wearing! I can’t get a job because I have a disability!
Judge: Why should he give you anything? It’s his money.
WW: Because I’m his wife!
Judge: We’ve backed out of all family matters. Sorry, can’t help you.
***
Son: Your Honor, my mother died ten years ago and my father just died without a will. As his only child and next of kin, I should inherit his estate.
Judge: Why?
Son: Because I’m his son!
Judge: Did your mother ever establish that through a DNA test?
Son: No…but they were married for fifty years, so I think it’s a pretty safe bet that I –
Judge: You have no legal relationship to the man you say is your father. Can’t help you.
***
Recent Widower: Your Honor, my wife and I were married for twenty-four years and she just died last month. I think it’s only fair that I inherit her estate, but now this guy here says he was married to her too! I’ve never seen him before in my life!
Other Guy: Yeah, I married her in church. It’s not my fault she never told her other husband.
Judge: This is strictly a religious matter. Go settle it at your church.
RW: But my wife and I didn’t belong to the same church!
Judge: Hey, marriage is solely a religious matter now. Nothing we can do.
***
Whether you’re legally married or not dictates how much you pay in taxes, who inherits your property when you die (in some states your spouse HAS to inherit at least something, no matter what the will says), who your legal offspring are, whether you can marry someone else, who is obligated to care for you, and, by and large, who your family is. If the legal system completely pulled out of marriage, it would be a free-for-all. Religions could decide that everyone in their religion could marry 100 people and the government, being out of the matter, couldn’t do a thing about it. If a couple was married religiously, one could just decide to leave the marriage, leave the church that married them, and be left with no obligations to the other. Iit’s like arguing that the government should stay out of property ownership. It’s such a basic element of society that it determines loads of things, and everything becomes dysfunctional if everyone gets to make up their own set of rules.
For those who think that SSM is giving due rights to the gay community, I really want to agree with you because I like all types of people. In deciding about SSM, one has to acknowledge the reality of competing rights. And I can’t agree that the adult’s claim for the right to marry/redefine marriage outweighs a child’s claim to the right to a mother and father.
Whatever their laudable traits, whatever their financial stability,
Two men can never provide a child with motherhood.
Two women can never provide a child with fatherhood.
By their basic design, same-sex relationships deny a child a mother and a father. Consider the impact on children when, for example, a father abandons the family, or a mother dies with cancer when the children are young. Its a loss and that most people carry for their whole lives. Why would we want to purposely want to set up a structure where a mother or father is absent?
In the case of abortion and the preborn human, we also have a case of competing rights. Does a mother’s claim to her own body for nine months outweigh the child’s claim to a right to life? The compassionate response is no, a child deserves to live more than the mother deserves the right to kill him or her while residing in the mother’s body.
I can’t support abortion or SSM, because children’s rights are unfairly trumped by adults.
I think pro lifers are more passionate as they know life is on the line.
Marauder, with all respect, there are lots of non-religious reasons to not to support SSM.
Search out the Ruth Institute, and Jennifer Roback Morse’s ’77 non-religious reasons to support man/woman marriage’, for example.
I happen to be a religious person, but I can also think of important non-religious reasons, and use these reasons when discussing marriage, and why redefining marriage redefines family, etc.
Personally, I’m sorry you’ve had to deal with rude religious people. I’ve respected your thoughts on many posts for a while now, and like the way you defend life. Let me ask your perspective on this- does a person have to agree with the way another person lives her sex life to respect and love that same person? Working in the arts (classical musician), I socialize with and love many friends who are in relationships (gay or not) I don’t approve of. I don’t picket outside their houses, or get in their face. But should I stay silent when asked for my opinion? Do I have to agree with everything they do to love them? Because that’s the way religious people (and I’m not talking about the Phelps types, but your average religious people) are made to feel, on this issue especially. I have enough self-confidence to know I’m not a ‘hater’, but I think lots of people are bullied by name calling into being silent. Its a tough thing, on both sides.
Whatever their laudable traits, whatever their financial stability,
Two men can never provide a child with motherhood.
Two women can never provide a child with fatherhood.
And I suppose even in a heterosexual union in which parents don’t fit comfortably into traditional gender roles, the kids are just screwed, huh? Ridiculous. As if every woman is Betty-freaking-Crocker and every man is Chuck Norris. Riiiiight. Do colors frighten you?
Sorry, Robert, but your ‘I know best for those poor-folk’ rhetoric severely limits your credibility. Social conservatives are the busybodies, huh? And yet, you are the one consistently saying that the poor are better off aborted. Talk about getting into someone’s business.
You still have an open invitation to come into my working poor neighborhood with a mega-phone and spread your gospel, ‘better off dead than poor- abort your children’! I couldn’t guarantee your safety, but you’re welcome to try.
Two reasons we are losing on the homosexual debate:
1) Being pro-gay seems “compassionate.” That is why young people are more pro-life in my opinion, too. Pro-gay and pro-life are both “compassionate” to the marginalized.
2) As soon as society accepted contraception (which had always been universally opposed by Christians), acceptance of homosexuality was inevitable. God designed sex to be both unitive and procreative. Anytime you willfully and artificially separate the two, you’ve got a warped view of sex and thus of marriage. Those who are okay with willfully sterilized, barren sex for married couples really have no leg to stand on in opposing gay marriage, because they have already agreed that sex is no longer about children. And we are seeing the fruits of that now.
Try again, X. Love your thoughts usually, but you’ve struck out on me here. Motherhood and fatherhood are bigger realities than gender roles and chores, and your caricature.
I work part-time and so does my husband. He does the dishes, I do the laundry. He does the cooking most often, I bake. Yadda yadda. And guess what? I’m still the Mom, Bill is still the Dad. Because, shucks, he’s a guy and I’m a gal. Not a tough concept.
Having a mother and a father matters to kids. If you claim motherhood and fatherhood don’t matter, I’d be interested in seeing how people respond here. Personally, I find that idea (not you, but that idea) rather offensive. I love my Mom. Wouldn’t deny that relationship to anyone.
Robert Berger you are blind, ignorant and totally deceived.
Go to the Exodus International website, the ‘Information’ drop down menu, ‘Real Stories’ and you’ll find 68 examples of the thousands of men and women who have left the homosexual lifestyle – which you said was impossible.
You have your position and I have mine. I’m sure it would be as futile for me to try to convince you of my beliefs as it would for you to try and convince me of yours.
Your above rant is better understood by substituting the word “God” for “social conservatism”.
“God is stupid. He shows a lack of understanding about reality, and gross intolerance…”
You are to be pitied Robert. You think that you are alive, but you’re spiritually dead, alienated from the life of God. The Kingdom of God is all around you but you can’t see it. Those of us in His Kingdom enjoy Righteousness, Peace, Joy and His Abundant Eternal Life. The benefits of His Kingdom could easily be yours, but you won’t receive Jesus as your Savior.
Jesus spoke of men like you in the following parable, “”A nobleman was called away to a distant empire to be crowned king and then return. Before he left, he called together ten of his servants and divided among them ten pounds of silver, saying, ‘Invest this for me while I am gone.’ ?But his people hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, ‘We do not want him to be our king.’
“After he was crowned King, he returned and called in the servants to whom he had given the money. He wanted to find out what their profits were. 16?The first servant reported, ‘Master, I invested your money and made ten times the original amount!’ ‘Well done!’ the king exclaimed. ‘You are a good servant. You have been faithful with the little I entrusted to you, so you will be governor of ten cities as your reward.’
“The next servant reported, ‘Master, I invested your money and made five times the original amount.’ ” ‘Well done!’ the king said. ‘You will be governor over five cities.’
“But the third servant brought back only the original amount of money and said, ‘Master, I hid your money and kept it safe. 21?I was afraid because you are a hard man to deal with, taking what isn’t yours and harvesting crops you didn’t plant.’” ‘You wicked servant!’ the king roared. ‘Your own words condemn you. If you knew that I’m a hard man who takes what isn’t mine and harvests crops I didn’t plant, 23?why didn’t you deposit my money in the bank? At least I could have gotten some interest on it.’
“Then, turning to the others standing nearby, the king ordered, ‘Take the money from this servant, and give it to the one who has ten pounds.’ ‘But, master,’ they said, ‘he already has ten pounds!’ ‘Yes,’ the king replied, ‘and to those who use well what they are given, even more will be given. But from those who do nothing, even what little they have will be taken away.?And as for these enemies of mine who didn’t want me to be their king—bring them in and execute them right here in front of me.’ “ Lu 12.27
Your judgment day is coming friend. You are going to live forever in one of two places.
Eternity is a very, very long time. (In fact, it’s the absence of time.)
Don’t blow it.
“Having a mother and a father matters to kids. If you claim motherhood and fatherhood don’t matter, I’d be interested in seeing how people respond here. Personally, I find that idea (not you, but that idea) rather offensive. I love my Mom. Wouldn’t deny that relationship to anyone.”
You may feel that a “traditional” marital arrangement is the “best” form for raising children, and you’re free to your opinion, but that’s not enough to restrict same-sex couples from marrying. Marriage is a fundamental right. In order to restrict a class of people such as homosexuals from enjoying a fundamental right, the state must, at the very least, show that it has a rational basis for doing so. Because single parents are lawfully allowed to raise children, divorce is both legal and common, and opposite-sex people who are elderly or sterile are allowed to marry, there is no real reasonable argument for specifically disallowing same-sex couples to marry on the basis that they can’t biologically produce children.
Joan, where do you find that marriage is a fundamental right?
Would you say that having a mother and a father is not important to a child?
“Los Angeles, CA — The Williams Institute, a research center on sexual orientation law and public policy at UCLA School of Law, has announced new findings from the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study…The paper found that none of the 78 NLLFS adolescents reports having ever been physically or sexually abused by a parent or other caregiver. This contrasts with 26 percent of American adolescents who report parent or caregiver physical abuse and 8.3 percent who report sexual abuse…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/10/lesbians-child-abuse-0-percent_n_781624.html
The times they are a changing. Many gay couples adopt abused/neglected children who would otherwise grow up in group homes or “night to night” placement. Children need loving parent(s) regardless of sex, creed, and sexual orientation.
“As soon as society accepted contraception (which had always been universally opposed by Christians)”
Wrong, the Anglican Communion accepted contraception in the 30’s. And by your “logic,” couples who can no longer procreate shouldn’t be having sex. Right? And that means that the sole purpose of women is to be brood mares.
And BTW, homosexuals are bullied, harassed, and sometimes murdered because of their sexual orientation. This hatred of homosexuals is based on religious teachings of certain denominations. That’s really sad.
Ed’s pontifications are merely reflections of a very homophobic religious orientation. That’s really sad. Hey Ed. Being gay is as basic to a person’s “personhood” as their hair color. “Exodus International” is such another way for religious gays to deny their “personhood.” Is being gay something that you struggle with?
“Joan, where do you find that marriage is a fundamental right?
Would you say that having a mother and a father is not important to a child?”
I didn’t find that–the Supreme Court did. Your second question is a non-sequitur. The state does not require that children have a mother and a father, and in fact, millions of children are raised in single-parent households, or by grandparents or other family members, or even by people to whom they are not related at all. Therefore, it’s not reasonable to use that as an excuse to restrict same-sex couples from exercising one of their fundamental rights.
“You still have an open invitation to come into my working poor neighborhood with a mega-phone and spread your gospel, ‘better off dead than poor- abort your children’! I couldn’t guarantee your safety, but you’re welcome to try”
So poor folks, knowig that more children will keep them poor, want more children. Interesting – especially now that “welfare” programs are far more restricted. Oh well, as they say “the rich get rich, and the poor get babies. Ain’t we got fun!”
Fatherlessness has serious consequences, too, DD. Consider all the fatherhood programs, all the inmates who have no relationship with their dad. One link from HuffPo doesn’t change that kids deserve a mom and dad. Besides, same sex couple members are capable of abuse, too.
Many male/female couples also adopt kids. All things being equal, kids do best with a mom and a dad. Or aren’t you for the diversity of having a parent of each sex?
So, the question remains, can we justly redefine marriage and family to deny kids a mom and a dad?
”millions of children are raised in single-parent households, or by grandparents or other family members, or even by people to whom they are not related at all. Therefore, it’s not reasonable to use that as an excuse to restrict same-sex couples from exercising one of their fundamental rights”
True that. And if they’re not lucky enough to have relatives to care for them, it’s group homes, or worse – life on the streets. If a same sex couple of a homosexual can give a child a good home, that’s great. Rather than allow their babies to be adopted by those sinful gays, Catholic Social Services in Mass. closed down because state law mandated no discrimination. How stupid. (But than the archdiocese of Mass. is still in a heap of trouble because of bad behavior, towards children, on the part of those clergy members who were trusted)
“All things being equal, kids do best with a mom and a dad.”
Got any data to back that up other than what conservative Christian groups say? A child does best with loving parents. Heterosexual parent haven’t exactly been stellar examples of parenthood. If so, there would be no child welfare agencies.
DD, nice try. There are poor families with lots of kids and there are poor families with 1 or 2 kids. But just keep telling us that aborting our kids will fix everything. Because… that’s really worked, right?
Even with your magic abortion wand, gee, people are still poor. Why not tell the wealthy what to do and leave us alone? What have you really done to eliminate poverty? Or have you just helped eliminate the poor PEOPLE?
I’ll extend my invitation to you, DD. Come on out with Robert and parade through my neighborhood. Keep telling us how to fix our problems by killing our kids. After the forms are filled out, do you really think we appreciate you and your POV?
“A Cambridge University developmental psychologist testified at a federal trial in San Francisco today that broad research has documented that children of same-sex parents are just as likely as those of heterosexual parents to be well-adjusted.
“Studies have found children do not require both a male and female parent,” testified Michael Lamb, who heads Cambridge’s Department of Social and Developmental Psychology”
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/children-thrive-equally-with-same-sex-heterosexual-parents-psychologist-testifies-at-prop-8-trial.html
“After the forms are filled out, do you really think we appreciate you and your POV?”
Who are the women walking (freely) into Planned Parenthood? And you ask me what I’ve done for poor women. Try many years working in social services that provide education, child care, training for women trying to get off welfare – which is a lot harder to do with too many children. When I do escort duty at PPFA, poor women thank me.
Oh, and Mary Ann. I also did door to door lead testing on kids in the ghetto. Those mothers with large families were very stressed. Large families in better socio economic conditions do much better. Poor families, who can’t afford the kids they have, are poorly served by having more. Or do you want folks to remain poor?
Mary Ann said:
Marauder, with all respect, there are lots of non-religious reasons to not to support SSM.
I previously said:
Besides, pretty much all arguments about why two people of the same gender shouldn’t have sex are religiously-based, whereas the fact that abortion kills babies is just pure science.
Emphasis added.
I think people should support marriage between a man and a woman. I don’t support the idea that marriage should be, by definition, only between a man and a woman.
Personally, I’m sorry you’ve had to deal with rude religious people. I’ve respected your thoughts on many posts for a while now, and like the way you defend life.
Thank you. :)
Let me ask your perspective on this- does a person have to agree with the way another person lives her sex life to respect and love that same person?
No, I don’t think so. Think of all the people who totally hate a friend’s significant other.
Working in the arts (classical musician), I socialize with and love many friends who are in relationships (gay or not) I don’t approve of. I don’t picket outside their houses, or get in their face. But should I stay silent when asked for my opinion? Do I have to agree with everything they do to love them? Because that’s the way religious people (and I’m not talking about the Phelps types, but your average religious people) are made to feel, on this issue especially. I have enough self-confidence to know I’m not a ‘hater’, but I think lots of people are bullied by name calling into being silent. Its a tough thing, on both sides.
My issue isn’t about people expressing their religious opinions, it’s about people trying to argue against homosexuality/bisexuality in ways that supposedly appeal to reason but aren’t reasonable. “All the gay people I know are miserable.” Okay, but most of the gay people I know aren’t. “Being gay and being pro-choice are intrinsically intertwined.” And PLAGAL is, what, made of imposters? “This study says that gay couples cheat on each other all the time.” This study is old, limited, and not peer-reviewed. Et cetera, et cetera.
If somebody says, “I don’t think people of the same gender should have sex because I have a religious opposition to it,” that’s fine with me. This is America and we have freedom of religion. It’s when people say things that are blatantly untrue about GLBT people – not things that are religiously arguable – that I get mad.
Mary Ann
December 11th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
Having a mother and a father matters to kids. If you claim motherhood and fatherhood don’t matter, I’d be interested in seeing how people respond here. Personally, I find that idea (not you, but that idea) rather offensive. I love my Mom. Wouldn’t deny that relationship to anyone.
While I realize this isn’t where you’re meaning to go with this, even if we exclude homosexuals and pre- or extra-marital relationships from consideration, not every family fits into this model. Married women die. Married men die. Divorce exists. Single-parent families exist for all kinds of reasons. Multi-parent families, also. A widower certainly might find one or two of his close male friends standing in as surrogate parents to his children. A widow might find the same with her friends. Single people adopt. From foster care, or if friends die and their children need care.
To define “family” exclusively as father=male, mother=female and no other definitions allowed, regardless of your feelings on homosexuality, undermines a large number of non-traditional families that exist for all kinds of reasons that have nothing to do with sexual immorality of whatever stripe. It’s insane to assume everyone can or should meet that standard, and unreasonably judgey to claim that those who don’t are necessarily worse off. I’m sorry, but this really isn’t a good argument at all.
@Mary, the 9th Amendment clearly states: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Something as fundamental as procreation need not be spelled out in the Constitution; it’s a right in virtue of the natural law. As a fundamental right, marriage (and here the Court quite definitely means between one man and one woman) and its accompanying procreative aspect cannot be denied to people on the basis of criminal history, race (see Loving v. Virginia), etc. But to argue that marriage is a right apart from procreation, in a situation where the couple is intrinsically incapable of procration (i.e., both are of the same sex) is simply ludicrous.
“So, the question remains, can we justly redefine marriage and family to deny kids a mom and a dad?”
Marriage does not inherently implicate children so you’re asking a question that’s not relevant. Even if it was relevant, it would be a stupid question to ask, considering the comparatively small number of same-sex couples that would not only avail themselves of their right to marry if gay marriage was legalized across the board but seek to adopt children on top of that. In absolute terms, the number of children who would end up living in same-sex households would be small. In relative terms, it would be negligible when compared to the millions of children who currently are not living in a two-parent household at all.
If you’re so worried about children having both a mother and a father that you’re willing to put the force of law behind that concern, would you support taking children away from single parents until or unless they get (re)married?
“As a fundamental right, marriage (and here the Court quite definitely means between one man and one woman) and its accompanying procreative aspect cannot be denied to people on the basis of criminal history, race (see Loving v. Virginia), etc.”
That’s not how fundamental rights work. A fundamental right is by its very nature retained by all people unless the government can satisfactorily meet the relevant standard of scrutiny for abridging that right.
“But to argue that marriage is a right apart from procreation, in a situation where the couple is intrinsically incapable of procration (i.e., both are of the same sex) is simply ludicrous.”
So where would that leave infertile or elderly opposite-sex people? Would the state be justified in preventing them from marrying?
@Joan, I understand how fundamental rights work. My point is that the Court has already addressed “habitual criminals” and interracial couples.
Infertile or elderly people aren’t intrinsically incapable of procreation. They’re what economists would call “free riders.” But practically speaking, the state has no interest whatsoever in preventing them from marrying, so I can’t see it ever being an issue.
“Infertile or elderly people aren’t intrinsically incapable of procreation.”
Of course they’re intrinsically incapable of procreating. That’s the very definition of infertile. Gay people, on the other hand, aren’t intrinsically incapable of procreating, they’re just not attracted to members of the opposite sex and so their prospects for procreating are poorer.
“But practically speaking, the state has no interest whatsoever in preventing them from marrying, so I can’t see it ever being an issue.”
I agree that the state has no interest in preventing them from marrying, but by that same token the state also has no interest in preventing homosexuals from marrying. If the state’s litmus test for marriage is being capable of reproducing, then there are no relevant characteristics that distinguish infertile couples from same-sex couples.
Wow Joansy,
Shouldn’t you be out shoveling??? Major blizzard going on out there you know. :)
@Joan, I don’t think you understand what “intrinsically” means. An infertile man or woman isn’t intrinsically incapable of procreation. By nature (and here I mean human nature, that which makes us human), all men and women are capable of that. Some individuals, whether from disease, malformation, or age, may not be able to procreate, but that’s not an intrinsic thing; it doesn’t result from his or her nature. By the same token, a man and a woman—any man and any woman—together are intrinsically capable of procreation. But a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, are not. Human nature doesn’t work that way.
Hi Courtney,
I am saying the Constitution does not specifically mention marriage, or for that matter procreation. Marriage laws are regulated on a state by state basis.
If we argue that gay people cannot marry because of an inablity to procreate, then the same argument can be applied to elderly people, people with certain genetic or physical anamolies, etc. I admit I’m a dunderhead on legal issues, but I fail to see the gay couple’s inablity to procreate as any different from the couple who cannot reproduce because of a genetic or physical anamoly,
Berger’s post made me LOL, as usual. :D
I agree with Leila @5:16.
Courtney 7:28 – I agree with your comments.
Hey DD,
You’re funny. Anyone that happens to believe that homosexuality is an aberrant lifestyle is “homophobic”.
Just so you know, I do not hate, nor am I afraid of homosexuals. And sorry, I’ve never been tempted to have a sexual relationship with another man. I have three sons and am a very content heterosexual :-).
I did meet a catholic priest who tried to molest me once. And when I was in my teens I tried hitchhiking a few times, was picked up by gay guy and was propositioned (twice by the same guy).
But none of that really bothers me (except for my concern that they might have preyed on someone else more vulnerable). I feel sorry for them.
All I am DD is a guy who in my early teens realized I wasn’t utilizing the talents God had given me like I should. Fortunately for me, Jesus went to the Cross and paid the price for my sin. And what I didn’t realize was that when I asked Jesus into my heart to be my Lord and Savior, He really came in! It is said that we all have a God-shaped hole in our hearts that only He can fill.
We do.
He does!
He did!
And He’s awesome!
You don’t know what you’re missing, so let me tell you: living with God brings real lasting joy, peace and tranquility of mind and abundant life.
Sadly, for some reason most people won’t make the “Great Exchange”. Most won’t trade in their goofed up miserable life for His abundant Life.
“But my life isn’t miserable”, some may protest.
Trust me. Like the psalmist said, “Oh taste, and see, that the Lord is good.”
You’ll never be the same.
I don’t hate gays. I just know that if they’d dump their destructive lifestyle, they could be happy and truly gay (in the purist sense of the word).
“@Joan, I don’t think you understand what “intrinsically” means. An infertile man or woman isn’t intrinsically incapable of procreation. By nature (and here I mean human nature, that which makes us human), all men and women are capable of that. Some individuals, whether from disease, malformation, or age, may not be able to procreate, but that’s not an intrinsic thing; it doesn’t result from his or her nature. By the same token, a man and a woman—any man and any woman—together are intrinsically capable of procreation. But a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, are not. Human nature doesn’t work that way.”
Your reasoning is ridiculous. A person on their own is intrinsically capable of procreation, even if they are infertile or sterile (which seems, to me, to very much be a part of their nature, notwithstanding your novel definition about “what makes us human”), but when coupled with a person of the same sex, they are no longer intrinsically capable of procreation? A person’s reproductive potency is not contingent on their having a reproductively viable partner. One or both partners in a same-sex couple could still go outside of that couple and reproduce.
@Joan, I said that no person is intrinsically incapable of reproduction. But a heterosexual couple is capable of reproduction while a homosexual couple is not. I specified what I meant by human nature because people commonly misunderstand that, as you seem to be doing now. Human nature is common to all of us, so you can’t say that person A’s human nature makes him incapable of reproduction. That’s not what nature is (else we’d all be incapable of reproduction).
“@Joan, I said that no person is intrinsically incapable of reproduction. But a heterosexual couple is capable of reproduction while a homosexual couple is not.”
If you’re only looking at the practical ability of a couple to reproduce, then I reiterate that there are no relevant qualities of an infertile or elderly opposite-sex couple that distinguish them from same-sex couples in any meaningful way whatsoever.
Tying that directly into the matter of marriage equality, the government cannot allow infertile opposite-sex couples to marry while forbidding same-sex couples from marrying on the grounds that they cannot reproduce.
Marriage as a social (secular) institution is for the protection of children. It’s not a feel good thing for the adults involved.
The legal structures surrounding marriage are mainly to protect the offspring, because society has a vested interest in its future.
Laws are to cover the usual situations. Gay unions are not usual, and kids are not a natural proceeding from the unions.
Time for people to grow up and start thinking a bit beyond themselves and their own personal (temporary, fleeting) satisfaction. This applies to both gays and straights.
Gays can get legal protection of their property and visitations without pretending that the institution of marriage is for the adults.
Addressing that Berger person who is continuing to lie about the use of contraceptives to prevent abortions. There is no study showing that the availability of contraception reduces the demand for abortion. There exist studies showing the opposite, however.
@Joan, the difference is not a practical one but an intrinsic one caused by man’s nature.
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that your definitions of both “intrinsic” and “nature” are unproblematic, that doesn’t answer the question of what the state’s rational interest is in forbidding same-sex marriage. That’s, of course, to say nothing of the possibility that homosexuals should be considered a suspect class and therefore protected by a higher level of legal scrutiny, which is not at all a difficult argument to make.
“Gay unions are not usual, and kids are not a natural proceeding from the unions.
Time for people to grow up and start thinking a bit beyond themselves and their own personal (temporary, fleeting) satisfaction.”
K, Pharmer, then what would you say about the fact that 65,500 adopted kids in the US live with openly gay or lesbian adoptive parents? Or that gay and lesbian parents are raising 3% of the nation’s foster kids? I know, I know, you probably don’t think this is an ideal situation, but come on, don’t bite the hand that feeds yah.
http://www.urban.org/publications/411437.html
@Joan, there’s no right, constitutional or otherwise to marry a person of the same sex. Skinner can’t be perverted to support such a claim. So the state is under no obligation to allow it.
I’d be far more concerned with children living with drug addicts, alcoholics, sexual abusers. violence, unfit parents and mentally unstable parents than I would gay parents.
Gay parents have been raising children since the dawn of creation.
FACT: For every child born there is a beginning, they are the product of 2 distinctly different sexual human beings with distinctly different REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEMS, male and female, only a male can be a father, only a female can be a mother, no matter how many mental contortions you come up with or how PC you want it to be, NO child can have 2 biological fathers or 2 biological mothers.
Are others able to raise children? Yes. But what is best for children?
FACT: Over 50 years of research has established that children do better in married, stable 2 parent families raised by their biological mother and father than any other arrangement including co-habitation, step-families, single parents or divorced families. Children in stable 2 parent married families are physically healthier (less prematurity, SIDS, chronic or acute disease, less hospitializations, STDs) , mentally healthier (less depression and suicide), less involved in risky behaviors (drugs, alcohol, sex, tobacco, crime, violence, truancy), higher academic achievement, more likely to graduate, less likely to live in poverty (children raised by a single parent are 9X more likely to live in poverty), more likely to become a single parent themselves perpetuating the cycle. And much more
Statistics related to youth and unhealthy risk behaviors compiled and published in
“America’s Youth Measuring The Risk” The Institute for Youth Development 2002
“Family structure impacts youth and their participation in unhealthy risk behaviors. Youth living with two biological parents are at the least risk for engaging in unhealthy behaviors.”
This book has over 140 pages of statistics, charts and data with 9 pages of resources with 130 different studies by federal census, Gallup, Dept. Health and Human Services, Mental Health Services Adm reports, medical journals, Office of Juvenile Justice, etc.
Read Why Marriage Matters by Glenn T. Stanton Pinion Press 1997 and The Case for Marriage by Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher
My husband beat the odds raised by a wonderful, hardworking single mother whose deadbeat alcoholic absentee father was busy running from his responsibility. My mother-in-law worked like a dog to support her children and gave it all she had. Her prayer for her children was they would never live through the nighmare that she went through as a single parent.
When the homosexual agenda gets through redefining and dismantling “marriage” it will mean absolutely nothing so they can then boast about how the last obstacle to forcing the embracing of homosexuality will be complete. Every criticism of homosexuality will indeed become “hate speech”, “homophobia” and ‘bigotry”. You will not recognize marriage or family, the bedrock of civilization or this country. Don’t worry you will not have to worry about being pro-life going the way of extinction as well. Countries such as the Netherlands have seen their marriage rates plummet when same-sex became a government sanctioned lifestyle, no one bothers to get married anymore they just “shack up”. Marriage will become a dinosaur, they do not really want “marriage” they want the destruction of marriage. You may drink the kool-aid and believe this is about tolerance and acceptance if you wish but it is about “transforming America” like BHO said. God help those of you who are blind to what this is really about. What is destroying the DADT ban in the military really about? It is about destroying one of the very last bastions of defining ”appropriate” sexual behavior.
HI Pro-lifer L,
So what if the family is a stable, two-parent, GAY couple? The statistics show that this arrangement works just fine for children.
No don’t agree Megan this is skewed research driven by the push to redefine marriage which has taken just a few years of this social experiment to try to justify their social agenda, a recent obscenity-laced movie and tried to make this true. I don’t buy it. Got to go.
“@Joan, there’s no right, constitutional or otherwise to marry a person of the same sex. Skinner can’t be perverted to support such a claim. So the state is under no obligation to allow it.”
I don’t know why you keep going back to Skinner. There are dozens upon dozens of cases that describe marriage as a fundamental right without any additional qualifiers. You’ve demonstrated to me that you can’t even provide a rational reason for why the state should be able to prevent same-sex couples from exercising their fundamental right to marry, and that’s the lowest of the possible legal hurdles for burdening or preventing the exercise of a fundamental right. Taking it a step higher to strict scrutiny would almost certainly guarantee that the state could not conceivably justify banning same-sex marriage.
“Countries such as the Netherlands have seen their marriage rates plummet when same-sex became a government sanctioned lifestyle, no one bothers to get married anymore they just “shack up”. ”
None of your other hysterical ranting particularly caught my eye, but this is a claim I’d like to see your evidence for.
Funny how no one questions statistics that ‘show’ kids are fine without a mom or a dad (by deliberate choice). Statistics that have been around for an incredibly short period of time, and everyone seizes upon because they want so badly for SSM to be good for kids. An equal amount of statistics can be shown to demonstrate the stability and diversity of man/woman marriage. Statistics that France relied on when making its recent laws, etc.
Why should we feel sad when a child loses a parent or a parent ditches the family, even before the child is born, etc.? But we do, because we know that kids desire and deserve a mom and a dad. Again, even countries like France get this. So do the American people, when they get a chance to vote.
So overall, I’m not sure that conservatives are losing the argument, not with the average American. With the political and media elite, yes, I can see that. But when it comes up for debate and voting, even in a state like CA, the people continually reject SSM since it means redefining family to DELIBERATELY exclude a mother and a father.
Alice, I understand what you are trying to say, and that you’re looking out for kids from broken homes. Here’s the difference. Children are raised in families where a mom has died or a father has left or divorce has happened, and other folks help out and serve the remaining family. Sad things happen, broken promises happen. Two big differences- 1) None of those family arrangements are called ‘marriage’, and 2) SS relationships, by the very structure of their arrangement, deny a mother or a father to children.
If we are rightly saddened by a child losing a mother or a father, why would we set it up like that on purpose? That’s what SSM does.
Alice, by your definition, fatherhood programs, etc., would all ‘undermine’ children living in non-nuclear family relationships. Acknowledging that children desire and deserve a mother and a father does not equal being judgey to families that fall outside the norm. NOT acknowledging this would imply that kids in such families have no real right to feel a loss of a mother or a father, no right to want their mother and father.
Do kids deserve a mother and a father specifically, or do they just need the attention that two parents can provide, as opposed to just one?
” Acknowledging that children desire and deserve a mother and a father does not equal being judgey to families that fall outside the norm. ”
Of course it does. It necessarily does because you’re asserting that those non-traditional families are falling short in providing what children deserve.
Yes, they deserve a mother and father. Why wouldn’t they benefit from the diversity inherent in our race?
What about you, Megan? Do you have a mother and a father, and do you value these different and complimentary relationships, or not? If so, would you feel comfortable telling your mom or dad that you didn’t really need them, only the attention of two people? Which one would you say mattered less, or you could have just as easily had two of instead?
“What about you, Megan? Do you have a mother and a father, and do you value these different and complimentary relationships, or not?”
They are different and complimentary relationships just by virtue of the fact that they are with two separate human beings with their own unique personalities and characteristics.
“If so, would you feel comfortable telling your mom or dad that you didn’t really need them, only the attention of two people?”
Would a person raised in a single-parent household feel comfortable telling his or her mother or father that they feel as if their upbringing was deprived of something by not having the “complementary” parent present? Would a person raised by a loving same-sex couple feel comfortable telling his or her moms or dads that they were similarly deprived by the absence of opposite-sex parents? Families make do with what they have. If the members of the family are doing their best to provide love and support to one another, then there is no wrong way to configure that family based on gender, race, sexual orientation, or other immutable characteristics.
Hi MaryAnn,
My parents didn’t have a complimentary relationship that fell along prescribed gender lines. They were complimentary, for sure, but not because either was a “man” or a “woman.” What I take away from my childhood is that I had attention. Not tons of cash, not fancy toys, not a June Cleaver mom and a Ward Cleaver dad. My parents read to me and talked to me like I had “grownup” opinions. Certainly gay parents can provide the same kind of nurturing attention to their kids, especially since it’s probably only the exception that heterosexual couples operate within rigid gender norms.
Sorry, late to the party here and I haven’t read all the comments so forgive me if I just repeat something.
Jill, in your question you have put your finger on a huge, looming problem. It is fairly clear, I think, that the pro-life perspective is increasingly winning among younger generations. But, the traditional Western understanding of marriage is more and more being decimated and abandoned by the same generations. Just look to Europe. We are not as bad off, but perhaps are only about 20 or 30 years behind them.
For an explanation of how this has happened, read C.S. Lewis’ The Abolition of Man. It’s a brilliant explanation of exactly how an amoral, self-absorbed, “progressive” (I don’t recall if he uses that term specifically but it applies to the current context) elite will gradually undermine traditional cultural values of the whole of Western society. It has happened very much as he described in this book. He saw this coming a long time ago.
Essentially, this has happened under the noses of the majority of America. And I would insist that the movement toward undermining a traditional view of marriage has been long, slow, and gradual. Many people are now surprised to realize how bad things have become. But they don’t realize this outcome has been worked for very diligently since around the 1950’s and 60’s.
How? Primarily, through the public educational system. (As Lewis described) Educational curricula in a wide variety of subjects (English, science, etc.) have quite subtly introduced and developed, from kindergarten through high school, a radical shift in the understanding of human sexuality and of marriage. Adults who are now in their, say, early 30’s, and younger, have been educated (most of them) in a system in which from kindergarten forward their parents’ traditional view of marriage and sexuality has been undermined over and over and over in the educational environment. But, years ago, it was very subtle and gradual. Today it has become much more obvious and blatant (because the young educators now, have themselves mostly entirely bought into the radically altered view of marriage and sexuality). But the cumulative effect over time has been huge.
Education is the main place where respect for a traditional understanding of marriage and sex has been undermined. Supporting what has been taking place in education, has been the media and a large segment of the entertainment elite (especially in cinema and TV and music). So, kids have, for a long time now in America, been taught in schools, since a very young age, to regard gay lifestyles and gay “marriage” as just another human rights issue–part of the American fabric of valuing liberty. This has also been long supported in not-so-obvious-to-parents ways in film, TV, and music–especially in the expressed personal attitudes of celebrities in venues that mostly the young only notice and give heed to. Take a look at sitcoms aimed at young audiences in the 1980’s in regard to how they treat homosexuality. With the exception of the Cosby show, you will find, I would contend, many examples of subtle support for homosexuality. “Nice” people, “good” people, don’t say things against a gay lifestyle, is the message very much communicated, and has bee for a long time, in entertainment media.
In fact, if you look at it, if there has been any one looming social cause that has been constantly pushed more and more strongly and consistently in film and TV and music worlds–a cause that has been given tremendous, ongoing, and very deliberate support and energy in the media–it has not been abortion so much (though this is supported). It has been, in fact, the gay movement. In education and media, support for the gay lifestyle as normative and moral has been given much more energy than abortion. Abortion is supported as as afterthought to sexual liberty. The changing attitude toward sexuality (taking sex out of marriage, and splitting the inherent link between sex and babies) has come first and is what the vast bulk of cultural energy by the left has been expended upon. Abortion itself, while getting lots of loud shrieks by adults now on the radical left, this is not the primary issue they have targeted for decades at children. It has been to turn the hearts of children away from the traditional values about sex and marriage–this has been the gradual project of the radical left (especially radical feminists) since the 50’s. And, to a large degree, they have not been opposed in schools and in the culture at large. They haven’t been opposed in schools much because, generally speaking, the educational establishment is in agreement with the radical left about sex and marriage–and has been for a long time.
Add into this mix, (since the mid-20th century) the fact that children have become more and more isolated from their nuclear family life, and spend less and less time with their parents. Thus, the relative amount of influence upon their personal values by school and peers and entertainment stars has grown larger as their real, daily contact and interaction with parents has diminished.
Even given all this, a strong, faith-filled, close family, can prevent their child from being taken in by all this. But, as a deep commitment to faith has also diminished in America, the number of families for which this is the case has become smaller and smaller.
As I see it, the issues of the moral teaching of the Christian faith, the rearing of children, and our society’s broad attitude toward marriage and human sexuality, are always intimately interrelated and inseparable. We have been acting in the last 50 years more and more as though they are, with predictable results. Lewis knew this very clearly in the 1940’s.
I think we overlook the fact that for centuries children have suffered seperation and disruption of the family through war, famine, epidemic, natural disaster, disease, hunger, and civil upheavel. Children were captured and sold into slavery, usually after their parents were killed. Children were born into slavery. Wives and children followed their menfolk to war. Children lived in orphanages. Children deemed “retarded” or simply unwanted were dumped into asylums. Annie Sullivan,the teacher of Helen Keller, and her brother were two such children. This was why Miss Sullivan was determined to help Helen and keep her out of an asylum, which was where children like Helen would end up. Childhood was not, and for many children is not, a time of innocence and bliss, but rather one of struggling to survive.
Yet the human race goes on. Families units of some kind or another prevail. Children survive. Yes it would be the perfect world if there were perfect families and circumstances for children. This has never been the case and never will be.
Maybe we should concern ourselves far more with children shuttled from foster home to foster home, abused, neglected, raised by drug addicts and alcoholics than we are with whether or not parents are gay. Gay parents are as old as the human race. Gay people were forced to marry and have children in order to be accepted, so guess what, gay parents raised children.
Marriage has been enacted through different practices over the course of time. At certain moments, “traditional” meant a strategic political alliance between different families and tribes. Arrangements in which brother and sister could wed to maintain social, political and material capital. “Traditional” in the sense that families sold off their daughters to husbands like chattel. Yes, marriage bears a rather nasty cultural legacy, but somehow I believe you’re talking about “traditional” in a different sense. If you mean “traditional” to refer to the institution arising from a distinctly post-industrial, bourgeois, Christian sensibility, then redefine your terms.
@DD: How many children is too many?
It is a union that is incapable of producing children, not a person. There is no way for a union of two men or two women to have a biological child.
If you had to elderly persons, sufficient technology might someday make it possible for them to have a biological child. As long as the man produces, or can be induced by medicine to produce, any sperm, and the woman has any eggs, it might someday be possible to create a child for them. I am not saying it would be right to do so; that child might need some other womb to grow in; but a child could theoretically happen. Who knows? We might one day be able to regenerate ovaries and eggs in a woman who by surgery, age or some problem has been deprived of those.
But the possibility of doing anything similar for a homosexual couple is more remote. And if somehow a woman could be induced to produce sperm, she might become a father, but not a second mother; if somehow a man could be induced to produce an egg, he would be a mother rather than a father (were those gametes united with a gamete of the other type). Biologically, a child always has a mother and a father.
I would also like to reiterate that feeling an attraction, claiming kinship or understanding with homosexuals, calling oneself homosexual or bisexual, etc. is not a sin. The sin is in choosing and engaging in sexual acts with someone who is not one’s spouse (regardless of gender). Or intentionally fantasizing about such a thing.
I think it comes down to:
Who is being hurt and how? Abortion clearly hurts the child. Gay marriage does not clearly hurt anyone. Even if someone were hurt as a result of gay marriage, it would not be the institution, but individuals who participated that were responsible. And it’s not a hill many people are willing to die on–abortion is. We are willing to help people who want to be helped or cannot make their own decisions. So we will tell the truth and help as we can homosexuals who want to be Christians, and we fight for the rights of unborn children being oppressed by even their own parents–but if two women want to get married, all we can do is pray for them and sadly allow them to make a decision we think is unwise and broadcast that they are engaging in sinful behavior.
I think that the solution is not to dissolve family law, but allow civil unions for those who want them and let marriage be a religious institution. (For family law purposes, a church marriage would probably be treated as a civil union unless there was a legal union conflicting with that). Mostly I think about the huge good that could be done if all the wishy-washy middle had to seek a church to be married. But I don’t know if any of this is a hill I’m willing to die on. I got married only a year or two before MA changed their forms to party A and party B. Had it happened before my marriage we would have probably gotten a Connecticut license, or even considered marrying in the church but not in law. But that would have been a personal choice.
Mary Ann
December 11th, 2010 at 10:33 pm
Alice, I understand what you are trying to say, and that you’re looking out for kids from broken homes.
You can’t possibly or else you would see that I am saying that not every family who does not fit the two-parents-one-male-one-female paradigm is “broken.” I’m not “looking out” for anyone, I’m trying to get you to realize that your definition, because of the way that you’ve set it up, necessarily denies the label “family” to people to whom you have no objections. You seem to be comfortable labeling those families “broken” even if you will go so far as to call them families.
I’m not arguing for or against SSM. I am saying that your argument is terrible. As I said in my first post, arguments that try to say “SSM is bad because…” in a secular manner invariably end out poorly. In this case, in trying to define “family” in one particular way, you’ve done what a good many pro-choicers do when they try to define “person” in one particular way: you’ve devalued families that you don’t actually have anything against, but–if you genuinely stick to this position–must begin looking down on some in order to be consistent. Whenever that happens, something has gone wrong in your argument somewhere, because you invariably begin doing what you spent the rest of your response to me doing. “Well, those people do fit this definition, but they’re okay because… So, you see, it’s not really a double standard!” But when you have one standard for straight people and one for gay people, then your objections obviously have more to do with the fact that they’re gay and not that they don’t fit whatever definition of family you have set forth.
I have a strong attraction to twin females and I believe 3 people should be able to get married, whats the big deal? if we all love one another…. how is it bothering anyone elses marrriage..
“Would a person raised in a single-parent household feel comfortable telling his or her mother or father that they feel as if their upbringing was deprived of something by not having the “complementary” parent present? ”
Of course…I have. My father left my mother. My mother was an amazing parent growing up, but it is not an insult to her parenting to say I needed a father as well. She recognized this fact as well. I was always very jealous of children with fathers who lived at home. I never once thought, gee, I wish I had a second parent or a second mother. I wanted my father. Obviously this is just anecdotal, and maybe all children do not feel the same way, but I cannot image any child without both of her biological parents not yearning for them. Assuming they are not abusive, I think the ideal is always for a child to live with the biological parents. However, this is obviously not always possible and does not mean that non-traditional families have no value. But to create such a family on purpose (single women using sperm donors, gay couples using a surrogate, etc.) is not moral, in my opinion.
I think that, ideally, all children should have two parents. I also think that it’s important for kids to have good male and female role models who are a regular part of their lives. I don’t know if having two parents of the same sex is inherently inferior to having two parents of opposite sexes.
The fact that same-sex couples can’t reproduce together is irrelevent when it comes to whether they should be able to get married. If a man and woman find out that they can’t have kids, no one requires that they get divorced. If a man and woman know for a fact that they can’t have kids, they’re still allowed to get married. The same goes for couples who never want to have kids.
Marriage is good for children, but that’s not its one and only function. There are studies that show the benefits of being married that have nothing to do with whether children are involved, and marriage involves several legal protections. Various civil unions (not the same as civil marriage ceremonies) and contracts do not add up to give same-sex couples all the benefits of marriage.
Legally, marriage is like paying a small amount of money and getting a big, thick, fleecy blanket. Civil unions are like paying a lot of money to get quilt squares you have to sew together yourself, and you can’t fully cover yourself with the number of squares you got.
Hi Megan 12:01am
Exactly. Marriage served many purposes and existed for various reasons in various forms in various cultures. It was acceptable for royalty and the upper classes to have their mistresses, even in “Christian” countries. Since these marriages were mostly arranged, it was understood it was no lovematch and the wife only served to cement a political alliance and/or produce an heir. Of course the husband would have his dalliances.
I think the most modern example of an arranged marriage I can think of was Prince Charles and Princess Diana. This turned into a disaster. Princess Diana was chosen for breeding purposes only. It helped that she was incredibly young and naive and in love with Charles. It was understood that Charles had his plaything on the side and was not giving her up. A very sad and tragic situation overall but one that was repeated time and again in the course of history.
Years ago in high school my sociology teacher told us this account of a situation that occured in WW2.
During the bombing of London, children were evacuated to the countryside. This of course would mean hundreds of children who lived in the city’s worst areas and were the children of prostitutes, strippers, drug addicts, criminals and alcoholics.
It was thought this would be wonderful for the children to get away from mothers who were the dregs of society, the less than desirable environment they lived in and the people they had to associate with every day. They would finally have a clean decent environment, 3 meals a day and associate with far more reputable people. What could be better?
Yet 9 out of 10 of these children cried themselves to sleep every night. They wanted their mothers, they wanted to go home.
Naturally this stumped the social planners. How can this be? Can’t these children see how much better off they are? Don’t we know what’s best? Maybe what children perceive and what we think they should perceive are two entirely different things.
What is a good parental and family situation is apparently in the eye of the beholder.
I believe that marriage is a covenant between one man and one woman. Anything else is NOT a marriage.
This union is the best for both the man and the woman and it is the ideal for raising healthy children. It is within marriage that men and women have the possibility to grow and achieve their potential. In marriage children have the greatest chance to grow up emotionally stable – where girls learn how men are to treat them and where boys learn to respect women.
Alot of people will argue about the above but there is a huge body of research that supports that normal marriage is the best for all and most importantly for society.
As an example:
Children who are raised by gay parents are more likely to identify as gay themselves – between 16 and 57 percent of children of homosexual parents.
This was found to be the case especially in the situation with lesbian parents – 33 to 57 percent of children with lesbian parents identified as lesbian. Not surprising since the mother is strong influencer of the emotional health of her children.
(Walter Schumm, Journal of Biosocial Science, 2010)
in addition to this there are problems with violence, sexual molestation and psychological problems in same sex “families”.
A large amount of the research done on same-sex parenting for example is a sham (read Children as Trophies by Patricia Morgan)
The reason the homosexual lobby has been so successful with “gay marriage” is because society has refused to protect marriage as seen in the removal of laws on contraception and divorce and because homosexuals have framed the question as one of human rights.
In the US, the prolife movement has been extremely successful in doing exactly this but in Canada the abortion rights movement has been quite successful in declaring discussion of abortion and abortion protests as hate speech. Hence the great success of the US prolife movement.
“I think that, ideally, all children should have two parents.”
why not 3? if they all love one another, I don’t sse how 2 parents are better than 3…if were changing the definition of marriage to including same sex couples, why can’t we change it again to include 3 parents? why descriminate…
I believe that marriage is a covenant between one man and one woman. Anything else is NOT a marriage.
That might be true as a religious definition, but it’s not necessarily true as a legal definition.
Children who are raised by gay parents are more likely to identify as gay themselves – between 16 and 57 percent of children of homosexual parents.
“Between 16 and 57 percent” is way too much of a disparity for me to consider this a reputable scientific conclusion.
This article here sums up why the Schumm study is inherently flawed. You may not agree with the viewpoints of the writer, but regardless of viewpoint he points out some pretty clear factual reasons why it’s not scientific. It’s about on the same level as those studies that claim that 95% of all women who have had abortions don’t regret it and the rest are lunatics, or something.
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/10/17/27400
We all fall into this trap. Point to this study or that to “prove” a point. We must remember that no study ever “proves” anything. It provides evidence. As Marauder points out, another study can be found to countradict, and on and on it goes.
Marauder you bring up a good point about 16 and 57 percent. Also were they raised by a gay couple or was the gay parent someone trying to pass as “straight” and in a heterosexual relationship? How many children of straight parents identify themselves as “gay”?
Hi Jasper,
In some cultures that would be the situation children are raised in. It sounds like the situation of some biblical kings who had wives as well as concubines.
I am not sure the premise posited by Matt Lewis is correct. Are conservatives really losing ground? We have made great strides in the past 30 –40 years in mainstreaming conservative positions. Polls show that the majority of Americans now favor restrictions on abortion. There was a time not long after Roe v Wade when pro-lifers would claim a victory even if they were mentioned negatively in the media—the thinking was that any press was better than no press. In 1992 we were within a changed vote of reversing Roe v. Wade (Planned Parenthood v. Casey) and since then the pro-life movement has in many ways grown even stronger. Witness the huge and growing crowds filled with young people at the annual March for Life and the emergence of tea party activism fueled mainly by social conservatives. Come January we will have the largest number of pro-lifers in the House of Representatives ever. I think we can count on them for traditional family values as well.
What gives us the perception that we are losing ground is that new issues keep presenting themselves. It is hard to wage battles on multiple fronts and once we start gaining ground on an issue something else pops up. Who would have thought, for example, that the perversity of gay “marriage” would actually be taken seriously? And so off we go to yet another battleground, although we save our main energies to fight for life as life is the primary right upon which all other rights depend. The institution of the family is pretty important as well.
Though we have made and continue to make great strides we are not fighting our battles in a vacuum. The MSM, ideologues, secularists, collectivists, anarchists, anti-religionists, and well moneyed special interests and legacy foundations with hundreds of billions of dollars are all behind various “progressive” agendas. Often these special interest groups find that their own interests share common ground with other special interest groups and together they can exert a potent influence on public affairs.
One of the main causes of the rise of secularism in our culture is our educational establishment. Scott @ 11:35 has a pretty good handle on this. It is no secret that our public (government) schools have become a playground for social engineers and “values neutral” (read this as anti-Christian) diploma factories from institutions that have been called “engines of socialism”. It is hard to argue against the latter when one peruses content on leftist blogs and the MSM written presumably by the “beneficiaries” of our educational establishment. It makes one wonder if by our tax dollars funding these institutions that we are underwriting our own demise.
And yet, as if to counter the negative influences from government schools some say upwards of 2 million kids are being home schooled. The Internet is opening up new avenues and networking options for those who are looking for independent voices and support for conservative causes. Conservatives are on a roll—we just need to keep plowing ahead.
Marauder and Mary,
The facts are that study after study indicates children and their parents do best in a one man/one woman mutually exclusive relationship. The relationships are wealthier, healthier.
YOU both may not agree but homosexuals use many (in fact most) studies that are very flawed to change legislation. They have been quite successful with this strategy but you don’t seem to mind, do you?
The one woman/one man relationship is not a religious model. It is a biological model. There is a great deal of physiological evidence that tells us that one man and one woman will bond biologically, emotionally to each other. These are scientific facts that are indisputable. And this kind of bonding is impossible with same-sex couples because biologically they are not complimentary.
Robert Berger
December 11th, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Social conservatism is stupid.
Wow! I just had a flashback to 4th grade.
Hi Angel,
I’m pointing out that others could point to studies that show children do fine in gay families. I’m not drawing any conclusions angel, I’m just telling you that studies of any kind never “prove” anything and all of us can and will point to studies that “prove” our point. I do not believe studies should be used by anyone to change legislation but this shows the trap people fall into where studies are concerned.
A biological model? Well, again some would argue. We need only look at our divorce rate, the fact that, shall we say “ladies of the evening” have never been put out of business, and the percentage of people who claim they have had affairs, plus the fact that depending on the culture and the era, men had several wives and concubines. An argument could be made that the human is not a monogamous being.
I’m just pointing out what’s out there angel, people can draw their own conclusions.
Mary,
Just because there are prostitutes and divorce does not mean that the biological process that occurs is wrong….some of the time or does not apply.
These are scientific facts , Mary. Research has proven this. Perhaps this is why so many young women who have multiple partners have so many emotional problems. Polygamous cultures in fact have a great deal of stress in those relationships – once again offering strong suggestion that each woman does in fact bond to that man.
The biological model exists whether you agree with it or not.
I too am just pointing out that there are many many scientific research studies that prove this Mary, so that people can draw their own conclusions.
A biological model? Well, again some would argue.
BTW, this sounds like the abortion rights argument re: the humanity of the unborn baby. A human person. Well, again some would argue against that too! ;)
The facts are that study after study indicates children and their parents do best in a one man/one woman mutually exclusive relationship.
I’d like to see those studies, please. I’ve seen numerous studies indicating that kids do better with a mother and a father as opposed to just a mother or just a father, but I haven’t seen a reputable one indicating that kids raised by an opposite-sex couple are better off than kids raised by a same-sex couple.
YOU both may not agree but homosexuals use many (in fact most) studies that are very flawed to change legislation. They have been quite successful with this strategy but you don’t seem to mind, do you?
You have absolutely no way of knowing what I might think about that topic because I’ve never addressed it here. Don’t put words in my mouth, please. I don’t do that to you.
The one woman/one man relationship is not a religious model. It is a biological model.
I was responding to your comment that anything besides “a covenant between one man and one woman” was not a marriage. Obviously human beings need reproductive cells from both genders to reproduce.
There is a great deal of physiological evidence that tells us that one man and one woman will bond biologically, emotionally to each other. These are scientific facts that are indisputable.
How do people “bond biologically”? That’s a genuine question; I’m not sure what you’re talking about.
Of course they bond to each other emotionally. No one’s arguing that all sex and/or relationships between men and women should stop immediately.
Marauder there is a biochemistry of sex and attraction and researchers are now discovering how this works and how the pill (for example) has thwarted this biochemistry.
Hi angel 12:52PM,
I agree there could be a biological bond, though I have never heard of such a thing, but obviously it doesn’t always last or possibly it never existed though the persons involved thought it did. I also agree that promiscuity is emotionally damaging to both men and women.
Relationships of any kind can have a great deal of stress, be they polygamous, monogamous, gay, or straight.
Again angel studies prove nothing, they only provide supporting evidence.
I’m just going with the experience that comes with being old, ugly, and with having lots of mileage. When I see a lesbian couple caring for the physically and mentally damaged child of heterosexual drug addicts I have to wonder about biological bonds and do men and women always make the best parents and why should gay people not be parents. Years of seeing human nature not at its best has jaded me a great deal.
There is also my love of history which has taught me that human nature has remained pretty consistent throughout the millenia, not necessarily good. That is why I bring up these historical facts which kind of throw a monkey wrench in what I see as people’s idealized notions.
Sure in the perfect world we can be idealistic. However we live in the real world and it has never been and will never be perfect.
We have only touched the surface of why children need a mother and a father and the best environment for children is with their biological parents if possible (no it is not the only environment). Single-parent, divorced, step-parent, cohabiting or widowed families did not have the same level of protective factors for children regarding engaging in risky behaviors (alcohol, drugs, sexual activity, tobacco crime etc.), health status, poverty level, violent behaviors, being a victim of violence and even life span.
“Marriage” the uniting of 2 distinctly different human beings, 2 distinctly different reproductive systems, (male and female) that fit together physiologically, anatomically, hormonally (oxytocin-the bonding hormone which women secrete when 1. engaged in sexual activity, 2. during childbirth and 3. during breastfeeding men secrete vasopressin during sexual activity, some new research even indicates changes in the levels of testosterone and other hormones for new fathers which helps them bond to mother and child). “Marriage” unites a man and a women emotionally, psychologically and socially (I believe this happens spiritually as well but those without spiritual discernment may disagree with me). Children are parented differently by mothers and fathers, research shows that mothers and fathers interact, play with, talk to and handle a child differently that stimulates different areas of the child’s brain, body, their fine and gross motor skills (fathers usually help children learn to take risks and explore) and even social skills are affected by a child being parented by their father and mother. The Fatherhood Initiative has some pretty data on the difference fathers make but mothers are needed as well.
My husband experienced growing up in a single parent home. He beat the odds worked hard to get an excellent post-graduate education, is a great husband and father but the scars are still there. He had to grow up so much faster, he missed his father although he was a very small child when his parent’s divorced, his father missed every event in his life especially the major ones (oh I forgot his father managed to come to our wedding), he moved on with his life but you never “get over it”.
This SSM debate is not really about tolerance, acceptance and civil rights it is much deeper. It is about “transforming America”. God help our nation.
Sucks to be your husband, Prolifer L. Unfortunately you’re still talking about single-parent homes. Everything you just listed has to do with the effects of having only one parent, not two parents of the same gender. Oh, and there are holes in your pseudo-science two miles wide. Oxytocin has been dubbed the “love drug,” and researchers are actively studying its role in relationship formation. But why would release of the hormone be unique to heterosexual relationships? If women release it during sexual activity, then what do you think happens when a lesbian couple makes love?
Oh Megan you are such a pathetic human being. You don’t have to be such a snark. No need to be patronizing, my husband is doing just great by God’s grace. Awesome actually. LOL.
No holes except in your mind regarding the purpose of the biology, physiology, anatomy, hormones and psychology of the MALE AND FEMALE REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM. It’s ok I won’t go in circles with you.
BTW I have known for years that oxytocin is called the bonding or love hormone and is released during ANY sexual activity not just heterosexual sexual activity (as well as the other situations I listed). That is why I said “sexual activity” not “sexual intercourse” which would be specifying only male-female, vaginal- penile intercourse. Good night.
Whoa whoa whoa. I’m pathetic? Did you read your post? You just contradicted yourself. Please, do enlighten me on the “purpose of the biology, physiology, anatomy, HORMONES and psychology of the male and female reproductive system.” How does the hormone oxytocin operate differently in gay people, since as you say, oxytocin is released during all types of sexual activity? You brought it up, not me, so do explain. Unless you’re talking out of your behind, that is.
Mary, the world would be a much better place if society concentrated on strengthening true marriage between one man and one woman.
The biochemical aspects of bonding are not to be blown off so lightly. Bonding in a relationship does happen and is one of the main reasons why young women are so adversely affected by today’s hook-up culture.
Here are a few interesting facts for example: It takes a woman’s body up to six months before her body biochemically recognizes a man as her mate. During that time this bond is developing and strengthening.
Oxytocin is a bonding hormone produced during intimate sexual contact between a man and a woman. Women produce a great deal of this hormone and this may explain why many women are devastated emotionally over the breakup of a relationship. However, BOTH men and women release large quantities of oxytocin during climax and this helps forge strong emotional pair-bonding.
Vasopressin also is released during sex which helps bond the pair. Vasopressin helps the male bond in that it enhances his desire to remain with his mate.
Exposure to these chemicals and others seems to have a permanent effect on body chemistry and therefore alters behaviors.
There is nothing casual about sex. There seems to be a biochemical process that helps a man and woman bond to form a stable, intimate, exclusive and permanent bond. I fail to see how this biochemical interaction would develop in same-sex couples.
“How does the hormone oxytocin operate differently in gay people, since as you say, oxytocin is released during all types of sexual activity?”
First off, there’s alot more than just hormones that bind a couple. There are also chemicals within a man’s semen that help with bonding – I don’t think either gay men or lesbians will have access to this.
The bottom line is that men and women are complementary – their biology is meant to be so. This is simply not the case with same-sex couples. How hard is that to understand, Megan?
“Again angel studies prove nothing, they only provide supporting evidence. ”
?????!
First off, there’s a lot more than just hormones that bind a couple.
Like love, a history of mutal respect and affection, being there for each other, being able to trust each other, and loads of things that aren’t exclusive to couples composed of a man and a woman.
Megan’s being rude, but she asked a legitimate question when she asked why, if sex releases oxytocin and other bonding chemicals, this wouldn’t be applicable to same-sex couples. Your answer about “there’s a lot more than just hormones” is dodging the question.
I’m confused by your comment about semen. Gay men don’t have access to semen?
However, BOTH men and women release large quantities of oxytocin during climax and this helps forge strong emotional pair-bonding.
How is this not applicable to same-sex couples?
Marauder, really?
Do gay men have the same reproductive organs as women?
Come on. Use your common sense.
I do not want to get very sexually explicit here. Also when I am speaking of other things going on I am referring to biochemical aspects. Ihave no doubt that some same sex couples are interested in forming stable unions but biologically and biochemically their bodies are not designed to forge such a union in the way that a man and a woman are capable of.
What is SO difficult to understand about this?
I’m sorry but I have a life outside this blog and I won’t be on for the rest of the day. Have a good one. :)
and just a quick thing about Megan’s question:
I would say that same sex couples do not have access to their partner’s body in the same way that a heterosexual couple does.
For example, there a biochemical ways that a woman’s body reacts and receives a man that is simply not possible for ssc’s.
“Oh Megan you are such a pathetic human being. You don’t have to be such a snark. No need to be patronizing, my husband is doing just great by God’s grace. Awesome actually. LOL. ”
Hey, speaking of pathetic, you made a bizarre factual claim that I asked you to provide evidence for, and no evidence has been yet forthcoming from you. Here, I’ll repeat my request:
You said: “Countries such as the Netherlands have seen their marriage rates plummet when same-sex became a government sanctioned lifestyle, no one bothers to get married anymore they just “shack up”. ”
I replied: None of your other hysterical ranting particularly caught my eye, but this is a claim I’d like to see your evidence for.
To Mary Ann and Ed: Did I say that the poor are “better off aborted?” No.
Did I say I want abortions to happen and that I like them ? No.
What I said was that unless much more is done to help the poor, abortion will remain common, and that just making abortion illegal will only make things far worse.
Most aboprtions are for women who do not have the means to provide adequate care for their children. Adoption is possible, but not a realistic soltuion to the abortion problem. To treat abortion as if it were a crime is stupid. It’s a tragedy,notr a crime. But being born is often a far worse tragedy than being aborted.
What good is being born if you cannot get decent food,shlter,clothing,edication and medical care? Unless we can do much more to proivide these things for poor children there is absolutely no way to do anything about abortion.
And the scenario which many anti-choicers envision as an ideal,where abortion was illegal in all cases, contraceptives were illegal, and welfare and other programs to help the poor were scrapped by our government is a recipe for catastrophe in America.
This will only increase the number of abortions, create a black market in contraceptives and greatly increase poverty,unemployment and crime.
It woul dbe like putting lye on a flesh wound.
Ed,I’m not a Christian, but a non-observant secualr Jew. I’ve never bought into the notion of Christ as savior, and that any one who does not buy the notion that Christ is the savior and the only way to heaven is doomed to eternal hellfire.
This makes absolutely no sense to me,and countless other non-christians.
And I wouldn’t want to go to a heaven inhabited by the many narrow-mided,intolerant, and self-righteous people who ccall themselves Christian todauy,or a God who consigns gay people to hell merely for being gay.
You have”peace ” and “abundant life”? Fine. And you are righteous? Sorry, but like most evangelical Chrsitians today, you’re much more self-righteous than righteous.
If I have to go to heaven by bad-mouthing gay people, I don’t want to go there.
I’m not gay myself. I just find homophobia disgusting .
In Judaism ,the notion that only Jews go to heaven is considered abhorrent . Ask any Rabbi . Jews believe that God doesn’t care what religion we follow . He judges us by our actions , and our actions alone .
Hi angel,
What I am saying is studies offer no final answer. No researcher who doesn’t want to be laughed out of their profession ever claims a study “proves” anything, they only offer evidence supporting or disproving an hypothesis.
We are all tempted to point to studies and say “see, see, this proves what I am say is correct”. Negative. It offers evidence in support of your opinion.
Every researcher expects their study to be critiqued, discredited, and found to have every fault imaginable. They also expect that other researchers will offer counterstudies.
BTW angel, those are the word of a published researcher, not my personal opinion.
Hi Robert.
“To treat abortion as if it were a crime is stupid. It’s a tragedy,notr a crime.”
Could you maybe provide a reason to believe that treating abortion as a crime is stupid? Maybe one that addresses the claim that abortion unjustly takes the life of an innocent human being?
Robert, I have no idea how to reconcile your following statements:
“Did I say that the poor are “better off aborted?” No.
…
But being born is often a far worse tragedy than being aborted.
What good is being born if you cannot get decent food,shlter,clothing,edication and medical care?”
It seems to me that in your last line quoted there that you have essentially described someone who is poor. Someone who satisfies those conditions (someone who is poor) is in a larger state of tragedy (however you are quantifying that) according to your previous line. Thus it seems that you are saying that it is more tragic to be poor than to be aborted. If I have two options, A and B, and A is worse than B, then all other things being equal, I should go with option B, the less-bad option. Thus, it seems to me that by your own logic that it is better to be aborted than to be poor. Thus I have no reason to believe, especially given all your postings over the past several years, that you think anything other than the poor would have been better off aborted. No one here ever shows more loathing for the state of being poor here than you do, Robert.
“In Judaism ,the notion that only Jews go to heaven is considered abhorrent. Jews believe that God doesn’t care what religion we follow . He judges us by our actions , and our actions alone .”
So God doesn’t care if we believe that all non-Christians go to hell then? Or if I hate a homosexual? In other words, I can hate a homosexual and believe that all non-Christians are going to hell and be more self-righteous than anyone else, but as long as I ACT the exact same way you do, I’ll go to heaven. As long as I don’t let my hatred of homosexuals and my belief that they’re all going to hell in any way affect what I do, then there is absolutely no difference in God’s eyes between you and me, correct?
And just for the record, I (nor the Catholic Church) believes that all non-Christians go to hell, nor do I claim to hate those with same-sex attraction. Yes, you can argue all day that I really do because I “won’t let them marry” but that is quite beside the point I am trying to make above.
I’m not a Christian, but a non-observant secualr Jew
Robert, Unfortunately, I don’t know that much about the Jewish faith and I really need to make time to learn more. I’ve never heard of a non-observant secular Jew.
Could you clarify for me? Thanks.
Praxedes,
My guess is that he means ethnic Jew?
Hi folks,
Robert and DD seem almost incoherent when it comes to religious belief. However, they do hit at something that is never directly approached.
There is little doubt that Christianity is best understood as a faith-under-stress. We are not at all a-laise-faire belief system. It’s strange that PC characterize us as such.
But I thought deeper about truth. Truth seems to mainly come from extreme(life-threatening) situations. An unplanned pregnancy seems ideally suited to belief, while homosexual ‘marriage’ has no ‘necessity’ to mark it.
Is truth refined, like gold. Where what is precious is rare and small. Human life is a very rare aspect of our universe. It is very difficult to speak to people who are convinced that they are but discarded waste and NEVER precious. What to say?
Ed: Your belief in an iron age mythology is not based on any demonstrable evidence. If you have some demonstrable evidence for the existence of god, let alone that jesus was a supernatural being, please share it. Not your belief sir, but evidence.
“How hard is that to understand, Megan?”
People who blow off critiques and respond with patronizing fluff usually don’t know what they’re talking about. Kind of a rule of thumb. Face it, angel. You have no evidence to show that gay couples can’t be “bonded” together to the extent that heterosexuals can achieve. You only have what makes “sense” to you, from what appears to be quite a patchy knowledge of biomedicine. Some more questions: if a woman in a heterosexual relationship doesn’t orgasm, is she still “bonded” to her male partner? Conversely, if a man is impotent, does that mean there’s something wrong with the “bondedness” of his relationship?
Oh, and if I come across as snarky, it’s because I don’t tolerate the use of pseudoscience to legitimize bigoted claims. At one point Western society used the concept of evolution to explain why indigenous peoples were “backwards.” I see so many parallels with that early “scientific” piffle and the claims being made on this blog now.
Paul,
There is so much to say … its very hard to limit reality. Apparently God does not exist because He does not do what supernatural beings do. Well, I’m waiting ….. Just what does God do? First off …. this world is God’s (Jesus said it God’s vineyard), it’s NOT ours (Jesus called us tenants – ungrateful ones).
And please explain the non-supernatural nature of Jesus miracles. That must be good.
If Jesus IS as He claims, what does it mean to you? Please remember He was killed for claiming to be God. Some (many) did not believe. His Abba did/does …. and HE IS RISEN!
“There is little doubt that Christianity is best understood as a faith-under-stress. We are not at all a-laise-faire belief system. It’s strange that PC characterize us as such.”
Hi John McD,
I don’t understand what you mean by the statement above.
Does “PC” = pro-choice or political correctness…?
My two cents on the issue:
The puropose of marriage and sex is pocreation. This has been understood by every culture since the begginning of time. Every culture has had to regulate marriage in order to keep the common good and protect its survival. The state has a duty and obligation to keep the moral order. Marriage and what goes on in people’s bedrooms, is the business and concern of the state. They have a right to keep things regulated and have laws when it comes to sexuality.
Every culutre and soceity that has tolerated Homosexual behavior along with general sexual decadence and immorality, always collapses and goes extinct. Within two generations, that culture is in collapse and on the way to dying off and extinction. It happened to the Romans, the Greeks, and will happen to every culture that tolerates Homosexuality. No culture can survive Homosexuality. It will be replaced by something else.
The West and the United States in finished. For those who still support Homosexuality, enjoy the last decades of what you call your society, because by the end of the century, our way of life and culture will be gone. This country will be Muslim and an Islamic culture by the last decades of this century, if Christianity does not make a comeback from its current death.
Jews who are non-observant don’t attend synagogue on a regular basis or follow traditional dietary laws such as Kosher etc. I have some relatives who are observantand do attend synagogue and eat Kosher,which includes never eating pork and eating food prepared according to tradition.
Among other things, it’s considered un-kosher to eat meat and dairy products at the same meal, so eating a cheeseburger is a no-no.
I do eat pork and it doesn’t bother me at all. In fact, it’s conisedered more healthy than red meat because of less fat. Of course, Muslims are also forbifdden to eat pork.
An explanation for the ban on pork for Semitic peoples is that in the hot middle eastern climate of ancient times,where there was no refrigeration, pork tended to spoil very easily, and this is a fact. This sounds pretty plausible.
In Judaism, Jesus is not revered the same way as in Christianity, and is not considered a savior of any kind. The idea of Christ as savior and redeemer of mankind is a much more recent one and came only some time after the death of Christ,as well as the belief that those who do not accept Christ as savior are doomed to eternal helfire,even if good people.
I could never accept Christianity myself for this reason,as well as many other non-christians.
The idea of God somehow choosing a young girl in ancient Palestine out of the blue in order to impregnante her with his son in order to redeem mankind 2,000 years ago just does not make sense to people like me
No disrepespect meant to Christians, it’s just our opinion. What about the countless people who lived before Jesus? What happened to them? Or people born in remote areas in primitive conditions who never get to hear of Jesus as savior? Are they doomed to hellfire too? Is this fair? After all,it’s not their fault that they never got to hear of Jesus.
Or Muslims,Hindus,Jews, Buddhists, or other people who follow other faiths or are atheists and agnostics?
Why should they go to hell even if they are good people? And why should a terrible person who at the last minute accepts Christ as his or her personal savior at the last minute be allowed to go to heaven? Is this fair? I think not. But that’s just my opinion. If you are a Christian of whatever denomination, that’s your right and I don’t want to interfere with your religious beliefs.
Thanks for your explanation Robert. I found out many things today that I never had heard about before.
as well as the belief that those who do not accept Christ as savior are doomed to eternal helfire,even if good people.
I went to Catholic school in the 70s and have been a practicing Catholic for much of my life, involved now more than ever. I have never heard a Catholic, leader, teacher, layperson or otherwise, claim this.
James Hitchcock’s article “The Price of Homosexual “Marriage” (March 2004 The Catholic World Report) wrote that Stanley Kurtz in a The Weekly Standard magazine article looked at Denmark, Norway and Sweden where same-sex relationships have been sanctioned for at least a decade, Hitchcock’s summary of Kutz’s report (I will try to see if there is a way to access Kurtz’s The Weekly Standard article):
“Scandanavia claims a low divorce rate but Kurtz points out “You can’t get divorced unless you first get married.” The claim that the rate of heterosexual marriage increased also proves to be misleading, mainly because the marriage rate is so low that a small increase can create a statistical bump. In Denmark, the proportion of cohabiting couples increased by 25% during the decade (since homosexual marriage). During the period that Scandanavia has allowed homosexual marriage, the rate of out-of-wedlock births has also increased sharply. In Denmark 60% of first-born children have unmarried parents. Kurtz shows that the forces that led Scandinavia to accept homosexual marriages are the same as those which have led to the rapid decline of marriage itself. The same “experts” who extol homosexual marriage also celebrate the fact that Scandanavia has moved “beyond” traditional marriage. Relatively few homosexuals chose to “marry” once it became possible to do so and some homosexual activist now admit that they are in principle opposed to the idea of marriage and supported it only as another means of gaining respectibility. Homosexual marriage, instead of serving as an example of a committed relationship, is merely another instance of turning such relationships into an expression of mere personal preference.”
My point is once marriage is dismantled and redefined it will have no meaning. The agenda to “transform America” has begun.
(Village Voice article Sept 3-9, 2003, p.34 The Radical Case for Gay Marriage by Richard Goldstein) He writes “Generations of radicals have imagined a world in which the norm-making rules of matrimony are suspended…Down the road, we might see groups of people sharing the custody of children”.
Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile wrote “gays” should see marriage “not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution” (“Bridal Wave” OUT magazine, Dec,/Jan 1994)
Traditional marriage has many problems no-fault divorce, adulterous affairs are a problem but the most extensive survey of sex in America found that “a vast majority (of heterosexual married couples) are faithful while the marriage is intact. The survey further found that 94% of married people and 75% of cohabiting people had only one partner in the prior year. (Robert T. Michael et. al) I can get the name of this survey if someone is truly interested. God help our nation.
Hi Janet,
The old truism … ‘There are no aetheists in the foxhole.’ does continue to have merit. Many only find faith in Jesus when there is no other place.
Many folks oppose Christianity out of a false presumption that it is a comfortable place … It is very large, but comforting rather than comfortable.
I suspect that many pro-choicers’ find society filled with political correctness. This is their creed! With the advent of modern medicine: very few die before the age of 10, so any ‘threat to existence/to-living’ is merely an option. They do not ‘have to’ …. grow-up, be responsible, or find any significance to life. Their ‘life’ is a shadow existence.
“The old truism … ‘There are no aetheists in the foxhole.’ does continue to have merit. ”
Well, no, not really.
http://www.maaf.info/
I see my earlier post (at 12-11-10 9:49pm and 12-13-10 at 12:05am) was misrepresented by Megan (at 12-13-10 12:11am) regarding the studies I quoted regarding the importance of children having 2 biological married parents as the best environment for children, the research data was NOT just about single parent homes but included research comparing children from 2 parent step-families and cohabiting partners which documented increased involvement in ALL risky behaviors, poorer physical and mental health, less school achievement, more violence, truancy and behavioral problems etc. when compared with 2 married biological parents.
I found the research about the sexual fidelity of most married couples I quoted in my post at 12-13-10 11:13pm it is Robert T. Michael, et. al., ‘Sex In America: a Definitive Survey pp. 140-141, Table II, Boston, Little, Brown and Co. 1994.
Ashley:
Young people unfortunately do not vote as much as older people do. The same-sex marriage bans are pretty much the social conservatives trying to keep their views enshrined in law as long as possible, but public opinion is become more pro-gay-rights all the time, and is very likely to continue to do so, as each successive generation is more pro-gay-rights than the last.
Here’s a chart that shows the difference in views on gay marriage across generations:
http://bit.ly/b6HyES
Prolifer L:
From what you’re saying, it sounds like the study you cite didn’t involve same-sex partners in marriages or civil unions at all. So, it simply doesn’t have anything to say about outcomes for the children of those unions. You therefore can’t use it to claim that children of married same-sex couples would be worse off than children of married opposite-sex couples.
At this point SS unions and marriage is a new social experiment only being promoted in the last few years in the US and only legal for about 15 years in the Netherlands which is NOT long-term enough to evaluate.
My point is that what we do know right now is that in over 50 years of compiling long-term research (not just one study Jen R) comparing children parented by their married 2 biological parents vs. other heterosexual and single-parent configutions of “families” the impact on children affects outcomes on all levels physical, mental, emotional, social and academic. People have promoted the myth for years that it doesn’t matter what kind of family kids come from (divorced, single-parent, cohabiting couples, 2 parent step-families), just as long as kids are loved they are just fine. Now we are going to “experiment” even more with the well-being of children in the name of Political Correctness. I have several close relatives and friends who have taught in public schools and been school administrators for many years. they can see the difference in their classrooms over the years as these new “family” configurations have become the norm and they are now seeing less students from married 2 biological parent families. Ask good teachers and principals who have taught for 25-15 years how much more challenging it is today, how much more neglect, physical, emotional and verbal abuse kids are subjected to, how little love, attention and appropriate discipline kids receive and how little support teachers receive from home because they are dealing with so many “broken” families. No, it does not have to be that way I have friends and family who are great single parents and are doing the best they can but it is not without consequences. I will not get agreement with what I am saying because it is not PC. Haven’t we experimented with our kids enough? The re-defination of marriage and family will cost us and especially our kids. It already has.
Yes, it’s very good for kids to be brought up by two parents in a stable marriage, but you have to realize that a complex mixture of social and economic conditions in society makes this extremely difficult if not impossible for many,many people.
The notion that there’s some sinister liberal plot today hatched by liberals to undermine the family and morality is laughable.But that’s what so many conservatives believe. It’s just very difficult for people to get and provide for their children whether they’re married,divorced,widowed,single or whatever. Liberals,including me, aren’t opposed to heterosexual couples bringing up children in stable,lasting marriages. They just realize that this is often extremely difficult to do.
Joke: Why is marriage like a three ring circus ? First there’s the engagement ring, then the wedding ring, and then suffering !
Question: What’s the difference between a dead possum in the road and a dead liberal in the road?
Answer: There are skid marks in front of the possum.
Robert. I really don’t advocate violence against possums or liberals but I couldn’t resist as a follow-up to your joke.
Peace.