News-Record.com

Attack of the wedge issues!

"One basic question needs to be asked of these individuals: Aren’t you glad you had a mother and a father?"

"On abortions, there again is one simple question: Aren’t you glad you were not aborted?"

So, the question is, aren't you glad that you exist (and are alive)?

Sure I am, but if I didn't have a mother and a father (in the biological sense) or if I was aborted, I wouldn't exist and whether or not I wanted to exist wouldn't matter. Actually, I'd have to exist to want to exist, so it still doesn't really matter.

"Let’s face the whole truth: It takes a man and a woman to have children."

I suppose, but children aren't really the only reason to get married or have a relationship. Even so, outside of the religious reasons, what makes homosexuality wrong?

There's an economic benefit to marriage and unless there's a non-religious reason that homosexuality is immoral, we can't legally prevent gay marriage.

It's not about having children, Robert. It's about a group of people who are freaks of nature, born that way or not, demanding that the rest of society discard tradition and accept them as 'normal'. And what better way to do this than get 7 liberal SC justices to declare them 'normal'?

Ya know, Neo, there are a lot of non-homo's that are "freaks of nature" .. you might consider me one. Discarding tradition and demanding that the rest of society accept them as 'normal' ? Again we all can fill that pot with names of groups of peoples.

Face it Neo: you are phobic, a freak of nature, yet here you sit demanding the rest of society accept you as normal.

Actually, it was a 4-3 decision. The LA Times, in reference to the case, stated the following:

"The decision was a bold surprise from a moderately conservative, Republican-dominated court that legal scholars have long dubbed "cautious."

Many gay people are celebrating the decision, but I think there is the real possibility that the ruling was no more than a setup—in order to, once again, allow Republicans to be able to use this wedge issue in the fall elections.

"Republicans to be able to use this wedge issue in the fall elections"

Maybe.

What goes un discussed is the difference between legally-tied civil-unions and church approved "marriages".

My Opinion:

Why "Republicans" traditionally oppose "Gay civil-unions" is beyond me. "Republicans" are traditionally the "keep Government out of our lives" mantra chanters.. but their opposition to people entering into a binding legal ability to share health care plans, inherit estates, etc., only proves what they REALLY want is Government involvement into the issues they choose. Pure Hypocrisy.

If "The Religious" oppose their church sanctifying "marriages" - that's fine .. but they need to just shake their head and walk away if some other church has a different viewpoint. Should God decide their church was correct by opposing "marriages" – that’s just more room in Heaven for the Holier Than Thou.

"Let’s face the whole truth: It takes a man and a woman to have children. All we have to do is watch the animal kingdom around us to realize that."

Lets see, you do realize that animals have sex for fun, and have gay couples as well, right? Just one example are the gay penguins:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/07/MNG3N4RAV41.DTL

"I feel their answer would be yes, even though some of them may have felt abandoned or unloved."

Statistically, gay parents are generally just as good, if not BETTER, parents than 'normal' ones. A report by the then conservative Canadian government shows this (which they later hushed up).

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ssparcdn.htm

The report's summary states:

"Research has consistently shown little difference in children's social competence, parental socialization, and family functioning between families of heterosexual parents and families of gay or lesbian parents. The few differences that do emerge consistently suggest that:

1.

Gay and lesbian couples tend to have a more egalitarian and satisfying balance of child-care tasks than heterosexual couples.
2.

Gay and lesbian parents may be marginally more effective socialization agents than heterosexual parents, and
3.

Children with gay or lesbian parents may be more concerned with or even experience more discrimination due to their parents' sexual orientation, although this does not appear to interfere with their social competence."

rahrah: Thanks for the post. I was thinking the exact same thing about not missing never being born but wasn't awake enough to express is intelligently.

I also wonder why the letter writer thinks a person would be glad that they had a mother and a father even if they felt "abandoned or unloved". What is there to be glad about if you feel abandoned or unloved? Oh, that's right...you should be glad you weren't aborted because then you wouldn't have the privilege of feeling abandoned or unloved. Sorry, I forgot!

I don't really care if two homosexuals form a domestic partnership and call it marriage.

It's their desire to be accepted as 'normal' and 'equal' on one hand, but lobby congress and the courts for special treatment via 'hate crime' legislation on the other.

BTW, I'm no phobic. I have no fear of homosexuals. Phobic: another old worn cliche used by liberals to describe anyone who calls an abnormality abnormal.

A society/culture that fails to raise children in sufficient numbers will eventually go extinct. The institution of marriage creates conditions conducive to forming families and to raising children, which is why that institution has been with us for milennia in all manner of societies/cultures.

Modern western societies have already been very successful at diminishing the role of families --- and thereby incapacitating them --- by taking away their decision-making power as regards what happens to the children from ages to five or six to ages 18 or so .
They do this with compulsory government schooling --- often accompanied social engineering projects of various sorts (a particularly striking example: the forced busing schemes used to generate massive white flight from American cities during the 70s and 80s).

Compulsory government schooling is a superb way to weaken families. But I'm not sure that establishment of gay marriage would not be even more effective.

Now how might it work? How might gay marriage --- establishing as moral and legal equivalents heterosexual and homosexual union --- aid in the destruction of families?

To the extent marriage becomes associated with a gay lifestyle, that will make it less attractive to male heterosexuals who already have to make quite an adjustment to the demands of marriage.

Imagine a day when flamboyant gay weddings are commonplace? How might this effect young heterosexual males?

To the left's great credit, gay marriage could be very effective indeed at diminishing traditional marriage and families --- which are bulwarks against socialism.

Gay marriage as an issue is definitely something to keep an eye on. If the Democratic Party wins the White House that means scores of ACLU-type federal judges all across the country --- including one or two on the Supreme Court, the nation's premier policy-making institution as regards social issues.

Slaan: "Statistically, gay parents are generally just as good, if not BETTER, parents than 'normal' ones. A report by the then conservative Canadian government shows this (which they later hushed up)."

Slaan, I read the short report you linked:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ssparcdn.htm

"Data was extracted from over 100 existing research papers that had studied the quality of parenting among the various types of families found in North America."

I don't doubt that that happened. But why am I skeptical?

1) Researchers in social science are rarely disinterested observers. I recall a survey of the 300 or so social science researchers on integration/busing around 1986 (two years after the 49-state Reagan landslide). ONE of the researchers had voted (or was registered) Republican. If there is a strong leftist bias in academia, it is even stronger in social "science". Studies that support conventional wisdom are celebated --- even if dubious. Studies that do not support conventional (leftist) wisdom are suppressed --- even if sound.

2) Studies comparing child-raising among gay and heterosexual couples would need to control for so many factors: income, education level, number of children, etc. And what is the measure of success?

Moreover the numbers of children raised by gay couples are so small that controlling for all those factors is nearly impossible.

And that's the point. Even if gay couples were the best parents of all, they don't have many children. A civilization can't base its hopes on a family structure that produces few children, especially if that structure discourages formation of families that do produce children in fair numbers.

I think gay marriage demeans traditional marriage, especially in the eyes of the young male heterosexuals. There is certainly no evidence in recorded history to suggest otherwise.

Rah-Rah-

Great post. I couldn't have said it better!

Neo- just so you know, most of the gay folks I know are completely normal:

a. approximately average in any psychological trait, as intelligence, personality, or emotional adjustment.
b. free from any mental disorder; sane.

So are most of the straight folks I know...but that seems to be off topic.

The explanation for homosexuality often is that it is the result of a gay gene. In essence, homosexuality is a congenital abnormality, and it shares its origins with other disorders developed in the womb. Because of this abnormality, many gay people say that they can not help being homosexual; they were born that way. Thus, they are genetically abnormal.

If, in fact, homosexuality is not an abnormality, then the other logical answer is that homosexuality is a chosen sexual behavior, and if so, then it should not be rewarded with equal status of marriage.

If homosexuality is a genetic trait, then the growing acceptance of gays and lesbians may eradicate them. In the past, gay men were advised to live a straight life. Just find a homely girl to marry who doesn't have any better choices. Similar advise given to lesbians.

They procreated, and perhaps that's why we have homosexuals, again assuming it's a genetic trait.

Who knows - now that things are changing, the result could logically be a decline in their population.

"compulsory government schooling"

Tom Shuford argues against a bogeyman that only exists in his imagination. One is required to educate one's children, one is not required to send them to a "government" school.

Do you have any observations grounded in the real world, Tom?

"The explanation for homosexuality often is that it is the result of a gay gene. In essence, homosexuality is a congenital abnormality, and it shares its origins with other disorders developed in the womb. Because of this abnormality, many gay people say that they can not help being homosexual; they were born that way. Thus, they are genetically abnormal."

Its not a gay gene. This is a common misunderstanding. It is actually high levels of adrogens in the womb. Every pregnancy is different, and every woman is different. Anyone could have had that happen to them when they were still a fetus. It is completely normal to be homosexual.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/03/29/gay.fingers/

Membername: "Tom Shuford argues against a bogeyman that only exists in his imagination. One is required to educate one's children, one is not required to send them to a 'government' school."

I wish the schooling "bogeyman" were my imagination, Membername! Would it were so.

Alas, only if a young couple --- or single parent --- is prepared to shoulder a heavy additional financial burden (besides mortgages, car payments, etc.), can they even think about pursuing an education for their children outside the government system.

How many young parents are in a position to make that choice, Membername?

Schooling is effectively a state monopoly --- even if a few families can and do escape. The state has families exactly where it wants them.

To the extent marriage becomes associated with a gay lifestyle, that will make it less attractive to male heterosexuals who already have to make quite an adjustment to the demands of marriage.

Imagine a day when flamboyant gay weddings are commonplace? How might this effect young heterosexual males?"

"I think gay marriage demeans traditional marriage, especially in the eyes of the young male heterosexuals. There is certainly no evidence in recorded history to suggest otherwise."

How might it affect young heterosexual males?

Is there any evidence in recorded history to suggest that it will demean traditional marriage? Because you didn't offer any, you just said that it would.

rahrah: "Is there any evidence in recorded history to suggest that it [gay marriage] will demean traditional marriage? Because you didn't offer any, you just said that it would."

We have a kind of window on our own rigidly traditionalist past --- think Medieval Times --- in the culture of today's Muslim countries:

"Same-sex intercourse carries the death penalty in five officially Muslim nations: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania, Sudan, and Yemen. . . . In many Muslim nations, such as Bahrain, Qatar, Algeria or the Maldives, homosexuality is punished with jail time, fines or corporal punishment."*

If homosexual behavior is thus regarded in these highly traditional, male-dominated societies --- which attitude was the rule across cultures until recent centuries, It's not much of stretch to argue that if homosexual marriage had been permitted to exist --- which, of course, is unimaginable --- it would have been perceived as a threat to and a devaluation of traditional marriage.

*http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/islam.htm

Now whatever one thinks of Islam as a culture, religion and way of life, it does produce children and that's what counts over the long sweep of time. It's not at all clear that Western countries --- with their obsession with expanding "rights" in all directions --- can do that, that is, produce children in sufficient numbers to survive. Certainly, Europe is imploding demographically.

Gay marriage is an illustration of the --- I would argue --- thoughtless "expansion of rights in all directions". It might well be enough to take down western civilization.

"It's not at all clear that Western countries --- with their obsession with expanding "rights" in all directions --- can do that, that is, produce children in sufficient numbers to survive."

So the measure of marriage is how many children it produces? When gay couples want children, many adopt, others actually have biological children. In either situation, there's a benefit. In one, an adopted child gets the individualized attention of two parents. In the other, a new human is made, you know, to perpetuate the survival of the human race.

Either way, you're still just making guesses:

"it would have been perceived as a threat to and a devaluation of traditional marriage."

Perceived. We really have no way of knowing what would have happened, and, quite simply, it didn't happen and it's not really important.

'Traditional marriage' seems to me to be a thinly veiled term for 'Judeo-Christian marriage.' For one, traditional marriage has already been redefined. These traditions use to dictate that, much like traditional Islamic culture, wives be completely under the power of husbands--generally, this is not the case today.

It's really irrelevant. Like I said at the beginning, strictly from a Constitutional standpoint, as long as there is a legislated economic benefit to marriage, it's illegal to deny homosexuals the right to marry.

Robert Hege and Tom Shuford:

This sums it all up for me. Here's the late great George Carlin on abortion and gay people:

ENJOY!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrXvDXVhqfU&feature=related

(Hope you can understand the concept!)

Rahrah: "...strictly from a Constitutional standpoint, as long as there is a legislated economic benefit to marriage, it's illegal to deny homosexuals the right to marry."

It's true. Although the Constitution is not a suicide pact, it's sweeping language can be used to turn it in to one --- by those of a certain social engineering cast of mind. One can do this by ignoring the meaning of constitutional language to those who crafted the language and to the Congress and states that ratified it.

Consider the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment (passed to secure the rights of newly freed slaves) which would no doubt come into play in any attempt by the judiciary to impose gay marriage on a resistant population:

"No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That must mean gay marriage is constitutionally guaranteed. No?

Bear in mind, the Congress and states that passed the 14th Amendment did not permit women to vote and would not do so for another 60 years and then ONLY after a long and cumbersome amendment process. Clearly the Equal Protection Clause did not give women the right to vote.

That dramatic social change took a constitutional amendment. And there is no battle over women's right to vote today. The Constitution was changed as it was intended to be changed.

Ah, those wonderful election cycles that keep the homosexual and abortion foes scurrying around. And the homophobes and abortphobes so energically charged! What will that more sane realm of the populous do now?

Shalom

"Abortphobes" Darryl W? Couldn't find that in the dictionary. So is someone who favors abortion an abortphile?

Darryl you go ahead and be gay, don't think you have a choice anyway, I really don't care. Go ahead and share your life with a male partner, fine by me and all the best to you both.

I don't however group homosexuality and abortion together, not as political issues or anything else. You may not have a choice but to be attracted to men, that I do believe after discussing the matter with homosexuals. However you and your partner (if you have one) make a choice to be together or not. Again I don't care.

It's interesting that people who favor abortion are called "pro-choice". Yes the woman, and perhaps her partner, have a choice but the unborn baby doesn't have a choice in the matter.

Kinda goes back the authors letter, most people alive likely are glad they weren't aborted.

"neocon said:

"I don't really care if ... BTW, I'm no phobic."

yea right. any casual analyse with prove those statements wacko. You may believe it .. but your rhetoric and presumable your actions do not support your dilusion,

First, Tom, here's a look at what little historical record we have of gay marriage demeaning the value of traditional marriage:

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/5/18/155516/198

As for the 14th amendment, while the original intention may have been to guarantee former slaves rights, the language still guarantees equal protection under the law.

And you're right that women didn't gain the right to vote until much later but Section 2 of the 14th may be part of the reason. It details the requirements and rules for apportioning representatives, electors, and others--essentially the voting population. It specifically refers to males who are 21 and older. And while this was a compromise between North and South to either force the South to allow former slaves to vote or lose representation, the discrimination against women is still implicit in the amendment. So, I'm not really sure women's suffrage is a great example.

rahrah: "Almost four years after the alleged civilization-destroying event, MA is second in the US with the lowest rate of divorce . . . By contrast, gay marriage-unfriendly, abstinence-only sex-ed reliant Texas now leads the nation in both teen pregnancy and repeat teen pregnancy."

Commendations on your use of related stats, rahrah.

But, as I said repeatedly, what interests me is not divorce rates, but MARRIAGE rates for heterosexual males ages 18-30 or so. How does gay marriage affect heterosexual family formation by young heterosexual males (the kind that get married and raise children)?

Young heterosexual males are the key demographic. What are the effects of "gay marriage" on the tendency to marry of young heterosexual males.

Your stats provide little clue as to the answer. question.

Moreover, two years worth of data (irrelevant though they are) don't provide much information on long term effects . The data, such as they are, on teen birth rates (which are much higher in "gay marriage"-unfriendly Texas than in gay-friendly Massachusetts) might suggest that young males place more value in marriage and family formation in than in Texas --- except that the data are not broken down into out-of-wedlock births v. births-within-marriage.

Even if they did, the dramatic differences in the ethnic composition of the two states render such comparisons meaningless, as teens giving birth is much more culturally acceptable (and expected) among Hispanics, which are a large proportion of the population of Texas, than among whites.

A point I'll repeat: It is always useful to know the agenda of the researcher, as the tendency is highlights findings that support that agenda, no matter how dubious (sound familiar?) and to suppress findings that do not, no matter how sound.

Could a little bit of suppression being going on here?

cRock-o-...feller said: "yea right. any casual analyse with prove those statements wacko."

We're not going to deduct any points from my life's quest to move up in the ranks on your arbitrary batting average scale simply on the basis of "casual analyse" now are we?

Phobic: (from the unabridged liberal dictionary)
Pronunciation: \ˈfō-bik\
Function: adjective : Phrase used to describe anyone who wanders off the path of liberal dogma.

Ummm...does anyone really think that humans are in any danger of becoming extinct??? Seriously, go count them all up and then get back to me. You should be thanking gay people (and anyone else who adopts) for decreasing the number of children in foster care, with no one who loves and cares for them. The fewer unwanted children in the world, the better (hey! another pro-choice argument!).

Also I just have to say this because no one has yet: it doesn't take a man and a woman to have a child. It takes a sperm and an egg. BIG difference.