Frank Turek has an excellent piece at TownHall.com today on why, regardless of what you think of the morality of homosexual behavior, the concept of homosexual "marriage" crosses a line that is way, way, way too far. Why?
Contrary to what homosexual activists assume, the state doesn’t endorse marriage because people have feelings for one another. The state endorses marriage primarily because of what marriage does for children and in turn society. Society gets no benefit by redefining marriage to include homosexual relationships, only harm as the connection to illegitimacy shows. But the very future of children and a civilized society depends on stable marriages between men and women. That’s why, regardless of what you think about homosexuality, the two types of relationships should never be legally equated.
Well, you can just dismiss Turek because he's one of these closed-minded Bible-thumpers, right? Check again.
Why not legalize same-sex marriage? Who could it possibly hurt? Children and the rest of society. That’s the conclusion of David Blankenhorn, who is anything but an anti-gay “bigot.” He is a life-long, pro-gay, liberal democrat who disagrees with the Bible’s prohibitions against homosexual behavior. Despite this, Blankenhorn makes a powerful case against Same-Sex marriage in his book, The Future of Marriage.
He writes, “Across history and cultures . . . marriage’s single most fundamental idea is that every child needs a mother and a father. Changing marriage to accommodate same-sex couples would nullify this principle in culture and in law.”
Is Blankenhorn must making a historical guess, an extrapolation here? No, he's talking about established trends in country where they've been allowing homosexual unions to be called "marriage" for a long time, now.
Are these just the hysterical cries of an alarmist? No. We can see the connection between same-sex marriage and illegitimacy in Scandinavian countries. Norway, for example, has had de-facto same-sex marriage since the early nineties. In Nordland, the most liberal county of Norway, where they fly “gay” rainbow flags over their churches, out-of-wedlock births have soared—more than 80 percent of women giving birth for the first time, and nearly 70 percent of all children, are born out of wedlock! Across all of Norway, illegitimacy rose from 39 percent to 50 percent in the first decade of same-sex marriage.
It makes sense, after all. If any sexual union can be called "marriage," then what does marriage really mean? What's special about it? What's unique about it? If there's no special value to it, why bother with all the hassle of it? So people aren't.
And children are suffering for it.
Only the most radical self-centered social-engineering Leftist would try to argue that children don't need both a mother and father, and a stable home life. That is exactly what they're being robbed of in homosexual unions where children are present.
And allowing homosexuals to call their unions "marriage" robs marriage of any intrinsic value, so the widespread shacking-up and chaotic homes already problematic in the heterosexual world will end up becoming the norm.
As a former cop, I've seen the myriad of social problems which come out of broken homes. Angry, confused children from these environments end up causing a tremendous burden on law enforcement and the legal system even before they become adults, resulting in assaults and property damage, and costing the taxpayers millions.
I made the case over a week ago that even beyond morality itself, the state has a compelling reason to preserve marriage. This piece by Turek only proves more evidence that I was right.
A civilization that allows children, it's future generations, to be robbed of a mother and a father in the home, and of a stable home life, is a civilization bent on suicide.
22 comments:
Pretty much every single fact in Blankehorn's paragraph about Norway is actually factually wrong.
- Nordland is not, by any standard, the most liberal county in Norway.
- No rainbow flags have ever been flown over a church in Norway. There was one or two instances where liberal churches had rainbow flags on display, tacked on the wall, but never flown.
- His percentages are wrong.
- Although his percentages are wrong, the trend he observes excist; more people do give birth out of wedlock. This trend started long before there was even any discussion about gay marrige, and if you look at the graph, you would see that claiming civil unions (that is what they are - NOT marriages) is a cause of this fact is plainly wrong.
-Also, stats show that although children with only one parent are more likely to run into trouble, children with lesbian mothers are actually less likely to do so than children from "normal" families, and in fact do slightly better in school.
Whatever one might think about gay marriage and civil union, it's quite plain that this author does not check his facts.
Also, for someone not christian, birth out of wedlock is irrelevant. Since we're - I suppose - all in favour of freedom of religion, freedom of marriage is a given as well. The majority of the children born put of wedlock in Norway, are so because their parents aren't married - but they still live together as if they were, providing a stable, 2-parent environment for the kids.
Taking your statement at face value, Norwegian, I'd be curious to know if these "two parent families" are comprised of the two parents that produced the child/children, or simply another man who floated into the home for a while.
Cohabitation relationships are said to break apart at a rate of 2-3 times higher than marriages, and that makes sense because there isn't the same commitment level in a cohabitating relationship.
And simply having a man in the home when he isn't the biological father of the children may be at least as bad as no father at all, since incidence of child abuse from men without a biological connection to the children is much greater than that from biological fathers.
No matter how you slice it, the devaluing and demise of marriage is bad news for children, and ultimately bad news for society.
That Gay couples seek to marry is not an attack on marriage. If anything it is an ENDORSEMENT of marriage, an acknowledgment that it far better to encourage couples toward monogamy and commitment, rather than relegating them to lives of loneliness and promiscuity.
Ask any Straight couple why they choose to marry. Their answer will not be, “We want to get married so that we can have sex and make babies!” That would be absurd, since couples do not need to marry to make babies, nor is the desire to make babies a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.
No, the reason couples choose to marry is to make a solemn declaration, before friends and family members, that they wish to make a commitment to one another’s happiness, health, and well-being, to the exclusion of all others. Those friends and family members will subsequently act as a force of encouragement for that couple to hold fast to their vows.
THAT’S what makes marriage a good thing. Gay couples recognize that and support that. And those that want to prohibit Gay couples from marrying do so only because they don’t want to allow Gay couples the opportunity to PROVE that they are up to the task.
For those who suggest that the issue of marriage is best left up to the states, it’s important to remember that the federal government has a vested interest in married couples for the purposes of income taxes and Social Security benefits. From the fed’s point of view, it wouldn’t do for a couple to be considered married in one state, then magically “UN-married” once they decide to move somewhere else.
anziulewicz, despite any love, affection or commitment, homosexual couples are missing one of two essential components required for marriage: either a man or a woman.
It takes a man and a woman to make a marriage.
You can have two axe heads or two axe handles, but until you put an axe handle with an axe head, you don't have an axe.
If homosexuals want to have sex, nobody's stopping them. It they want to make a commitment to each other, nobody's stopping them.
But they cannot get married because marriage takes a man and a woman. They can put on the emperor's clothes and claim a "marriage" but it will never be one.
Attempts to put these "emperors clothes" on the institution of marriage devalues it and makes it worthless.
Society has a compelling interest in preserving marriage for the good of our children and the stability of society; when the family is undermined, all of civilization is undermined.
The answer to your first question is "a mix". As marriage is not viewed as a given, a higher percentage is probably the actual parents that in societies when marrige is expected. Also, I personally know many people who have grown up with excellent "new" dads og moms, and think it's preferable to growing up with parents who have a bad marriage. In norwegian society, children of divorce almost always have contact with both their parents, and usually also get along well with their parents new partners.
On the subject of cohabitaion relationships with children (such as the one I'm in), in Norway they break apart at almost the exact same rate as marriages with children. This might be different in the US as you claim, but here it seems getting married does absolutely nothing to better the odds of a long relationship. Slightly more than 50% of marriages end in divorce.
Good parenting, honesty, love, fidelity, morals, all these things I care deeply about - but unlike you, I don't think the demise of marriage would matter much. But as an old tradition, important for many people of religious or simply romatic disposition, I think marriage will acutally prosper - especially when gays can also join in.
I have been living in Nordland the last 30 years, and I can vouch for the facts in Norwegians comments.
Furthermore the author’s ridiculous assertions make the article rather uninteresting to read.
There is no statistical evidence proving that marriage is better for the children than cohabitation. In this part of the world nobody makes any distinction between the two.
Why don’t you stop and think for a moment Bob. If our sinful way of life is so damaging to the children,-why have we so few problems? Almost no crime, very low suicide rate, less than average drug problem. By almost any parameter on psychosocial wellbeing northern youth have better score than children in the south, and FAR better than USA.
I don’t care much for homosexuality, it’s against nature. But if two adults love each other and wants to make a commitment, who are we to interfere with our sanctimonious finger. It is a fundamental human right to love another person of your own choosing
You mean other than the fact that cohabitative relationships break up at a much higher rate than marriages? And that such chaos is emotionally damaging to children, which also hinders their ability to adjust socially and perform well academically?
If two men or two women love each other and want to make a commitment to each other, they can do that. But they have no right to call it something it isn't and can never be: marriage. Marriage takes a man and a woman.
DEAR BOB ELLIS:
I you think the term "marriage" is so sacrosant that only heterosexual couples are entitled to it, fine. Let "marriage" be a term used by churches, synagogues, and mosques. But it is not the business of our secular government to decree what is sacred and what is not. If your church has decided that only a heterosexual couple can constitute a "marriage," fine, but there are other churches and synagogues more than willing to bless Gay couples who have declared a wish to build lives together in the context of monogamy and respect.
To say that taxpaying Gay couples must contribute to the same governmental system of financial supports and responsibilities for "married" couples, but be unable to take part in that same system, is simply unconstitutional. It may fit in with your religious beliefs, but our government is not a theocracy. YET.
And please don't fall back on that old argument that Gay Americans have every right to marry persons of the OPPOSITE sex. It might get a chuckle in the Sean Hannity Comedy Club, but it's as absurd as for me to suggest that YOU (who are ostensibly heterosexual) might try a relationship with another man.
DEAR BOB ELLIS:
Since the word "marriage" seems to be the only thing that really matters to you, let me offer these thoughts:
As someone who prides himself as being nothing if not diplomatic, I would take simple legal equality under the law, even if the operative term is "civil unions." If social conservatives simply wish to reserve the term "marriage" for heterosexual couples, they can have it, as long as Gay couples are treated fairly.
Here's an example of how the current system is not fair: According to a statement I recently received in the mail from the Social Security Administration, my married spouse would be eligible for over $1400 per month (after retirement) in the event of my death. I think anyone would agree that $1400 per month is a pretty hefty chunk of change. However, it is money that my significant other would not be eligible for, because we would not be allowed to get married. I would like to provide for the financial well-being of my spouse, just as I'm sure you would, but in essence I'm throwing away money on a fund that my partner cannot take advantage to in the event of my death.
At the root of this discrepancy is the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which was signed, to his eternal shame, by Bill Clinton. Because of DOMA, even Gay couples who are legally married in Massachusetts unrecognized by the federal government, and any such couple becomes magically "UN-married" once they move to another state. So frankly, even married Gay couples in Massachusetts continue to be second-class citizens in the eyes of Washington.
At the very least, the federal government should allow Gay spouses file joint tax returns and to designate one another for survivorship benefits under Social Security. If a "civil union" would allow us to do this, I'm all for it. If not, then nothing but full marriage equality will suffice.
I think you're getting close to the heart of the matter, anziulewicz. Marriage IS so sacrosanct that only a man and a woman are entitled to it.
Beyond the fact that marriage was instituted by God, it has a specific purpose that even the state has an interest in.
Only a man is entitled to be called a man, only a woman is entitled to be called a woman. In other words, you don't call something by a name that it clearly is not. You can call a fig tree an anvil all day long, but that's not going to really make it an anvil, is it?
Homosexuals take part in the governmental system just as married couples and even singles do. There is nothing discriminatory against any of these groups; they all enjoy the same rights--including the right to marry someone of the opposite sex (I know you don't like that answer, but hey, some people don't like gravity, working for a living, and speed limit laws...but they're still bound by them).
And no, it doesn't even come close to needing a theocracy to warrant protection of marriage. We haven't had a theocracy in America for over 200 years, yet we've done just fine without trying to reinvent marriage.
For a treatise on why the state has an interest in protecting marriage from being hijacked, I suggest you read this: http://www.dakotavoice.com/2008/05/society-and-state-have-compelling.html
@Bob Ellis
Your narrow minded intolerance makes me believe you are a religious man.
Who shall, in your opinion, decide how people live their lives? Who has the right, and from whom is that right given?
In what way are you different from Caligula, who married his horse Incitatus, but persecuted the early Christians because they disobeyed the rules set by the Romans? Don’t you understand that faith and feelings must never be oppressed by others?
I must admit I fail to understand the American quasi-Christianity... Killing hundreds of thousand innocent people in Iraq is a mere trifle, but same sex marriage is an abomination.
What hypocrisy, and how far from what Jesus stood and died for.
To answer your next comment, anziulewicz:
Homosexuals already are treated fairly. Single heterosexuals don’t receive any special legal, tax or financial recognition, and neither do cohabitating heterosexual couples. Why? None of these groups do for society what MARRIAGE does. It is a particular institution, characterized by a man, a woman, and a publicly expressed life-long commitment, resulting in a stable environment for raising and nurturing children—something the state has a compelling interest in.
If you’re not married to someone of the opposite sex, then you’re not married at all, and they don’t qualify for any financial goodies; it takes a man and a woman to make a marriage. If you don’t like that financial reality, then marry someone of the opposite sex.
Civil unions are simply an attempt to create a facsimile of marriage without actually calling it by that name, since some people still might find it more palatable than actually attempting to hijack marriage by name
But these relationships don’t merit official recognition even under these names, just as cohabitative heterosexual relationships don’t. If someone wants legal recognition of their relationship that bad they can do the thing that warrants official recognition: get married to someone of the opposite sex.
The state doesn’t recognize these relationships because they don’t perform the same function and carry the same benefit as a genuine marriage between a man and a woman. Calling something else (that isn’t) by the same name devalues marriage and undermines it.
I think what you mean, Daga1, is that my principled stand for what is true and right makes you believe I'm a religions man, and you'd be correct.
God has the right to tell people how to live their lives, since He created the universe and everything in it, including the human race. He laid out his design for human sexuality in Genesis, and Jesus reaffirmed in in the New Testament, just as he told us in both Old and New Testaments that homosexuality is a violation of his design for human sexuality, and that he strongly disapproves of it.
Your argument about the Roman emperors and feelings holds no water. Put simply, for one thing, it is proper to restrict and even punish what is wrong, while it is improper to restrict and punish what is right. God makes it clear (and nature gives witness) that homosexuality is wrong, while the worship of Jesus Christ is right.
Also, feelings are not always right. The Bible says that the heart is desperately wicked, and deceitful, that it misleads us into sin. If I "feel" I must have sex with my daughter, should that feeling be restricted from fruition by the state? If I "feel" I must steal your car, should that feeling be restricted by the state? If I "feel" I should prostitute my body or do meth, should that feeling be restricted by the state?
By the way, I think you're a little confused on the Iraq thing as well. That was Saddam that intentionally killed thousands in his own country; Americans set the Iraqi people free, and are spilling our own blood to help keep them free and protect them from terrorists who would again target innocent civilians.
Perfectly in keeping with what Jesus stood and died for.
I'm just wondering why children need a man and woman to raise them? I would imagine that children need loving parents. By that, I mean that a child needs at least one adult they can trust who loves them. Two, is of course, better than one. Perhaps we can all agree on that?
A child raised by its mother and grandmother because the father left is not a stunted child when it is raised with love, even though it is being raised by two women who love each other.
A child raised by its father and uncle because its mother died is not a stunted child when it is raised with love, even though it is being raised by two men who love each other.
In heterosexual households, children are growing up witnessing incredible amounts of domestic violence. In almost half of marriages in America, children are witnessing the conflict of divorce and seperation.
A child raised by two women who are married to each other or two men who are married to each other is not a stunted child when it is raised with love.
So please don't talk about how family and the society suffer from the realisation of gay marriage. The truth is that YOU and your view of how the world SHOULD be is suffering. I suggest you keep it to yourself.
jenny.jojo, children need a mother and a father to raise them; that's the way God designed it to be.
One key reason for this is that with both mother and father in the home as it should be, the children see it modeled how men and women are supposed to relate to one another, work together and compliment one another.
A household where there are two men or two women, even in the non-sexual situations you mentioned, robs the child of that.
It is true that children are being exposed to domestic violence, and too much of it, though not the half of homes you imply.
However, putting children in homosexual homes would be like taking them out of the frying pan and throwing them into the fire, since domestic violence is far more prevalent in homosexual relationships.
It is true Saddam was a despot, and that he during his reign killed over 30 000 of his own people.
So far the US invasion has caused over 1.3 million death, 4 million refugees and countless malformation and cancer in children due to depleted uranium. In medicine we have a rule “Noli nocere” do no harm. That means than the treatment must not cause more pain and suffering than the illness
What gives you the right to claim to know what god wants? Nothing, except your lack of common sense. Of human compassion and empathy. You have more in common with Osama Bin Laden than with people like Desmond Tutu. He’s a man who knows and shows true Christianity.
By all means, feel free to abide by your interpretation of the bible, but you have no right whatsoever to demand, not even expect other people to follow.
“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.”
Daga1, I think you've been listening to MoveOn.org and too many other anti-American groups too much. Those figures are beyond outrageous.
It doesn't take a genius to know what God wants. He spelled it out very plainly in the Bible. It doesn't take theological degrees or any degree of "interpretation" to read the Bible and understand what God was saying; that's the beauty of God's word. I suggest you give it a try; you might be amazed at what you find there.
I don't demand anything; I'm just repeating what God has already told us. We all ignore it to our own peril.
You are right: In these times is it un-American to speak of peace and justice. To speak up against an administration that violates your constitution is not anti-American; it is your only hope. Why do you think US are hated and despised from the outside world? Because you are so full of yourselves, ignorant bullies, like a spoiled brat who destroys everything in sight because he’s not getting his way.
Only stupid or crazy people claim to know what god wants from us. What we can do until we meet him is try our best, to live the way Jesus told us, humble and NEVER for a second believe we know the truth.
I’m an atheist, but have more Christianity in my little finger than you have in your head.
If you should be so happy to meet Jesus on your way, I’m sure you would accuse him of anti-American sentiments too, and for once you would be right.
btw Bob.
The figure of deaths in Iraq is not from Moveon.org , but from the most prestigious and respected medical journal in the World .The Lancet :
thttp://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdfjournal But by all means, if the truth is hard to swallow, feel free to close your eyes for unpleasant realities It is, after all pathognomic for your kind. My educated guess is that you have no idea how many Iraqis have lost their lives,..you simply don’t want to know. Stalin once said: "One mans death is a tragedy , one million dead is statistics. He was at least honest.
Daga1, those Lancet figures were debunked almost a year ago.
If you take a quick look at those around the world who hate America, you'll find it's those who hate freedom, who hate truth, who hate what's right...and usually those who have been on the take from selling weapons to the Iraqis, lining their pockets with "food-for-oil" and such. Being hated by evil people is in a sense a badge of honor.
Our constitution hasn't been violated by our president in pursuit of our enemies, though it has been by liberals who want to quash free speech.
BTW, maybe you didn't realize it, but you said something completely illogical in your second to last comment. You said we should try to live the way Jesus told us...but NEVER for a second believe we know the truth. How can we life the way Jesus told us to if we can't have a clue what he told us???
The thing is, we can know what he told us, and we CAN know the truth--read his book, the Bible, and don't try to read a bunch of human philosophy into it. Just read it for what it says; it's that simple. Just read what it says and you'll know the truth. If you can't do that, then you can't even know what Jesus wants us to do.
Jesus said "And you will know the truth and the truth will se you free."--John 8:32
As for depleted uranium causing illness and deformities, that was debunked by the Rand study in 1999. The Left still trots it out regularly in spite of the facts. Depleted uranium has about .7 the degree of radiation as natural granite and even sand and sea water. It has been proven to be essentially harmless to life. The deformities claimed by Saddam were a collection of photos of tragic birth defects collected by the regime over many years going back into the 70s and 80s, long before any DU was used in the Middle East. But those who hate America are quite willing to spread such propaganda because it fits their template of blaming America for all the evils in the world.
The Rand study didnt prove that DU is harmless in penetrating ordnance. All it proved was scientific incompetance and the well known fact that depleted uranium is harmless in solid and liquid form
In a grenade or rocket the DU will crystalize into microparticles and enter the body through the respiratory tract and reside in the alveolar system for decades--the same way tar and coal does in smoking.
Post a Comment