View Comments |
Print This Post
|
by Matthew Roberts |
July 14th, 2006
Leveled buildings can easily be rebuilt, but once a nation’s moral fiber has been destroyed it is in serious trouble.
In recent articles one is inclined to believe that people only oppose “gay marriage” on religious grounds. If you look at the history of homosexuality, however, you will find that people have had criticisms of homosexual behavior on other grounds as well.
Many of the arguments one hears against gay marriage are religious or, more specifically, Christian in nature. For example, Leviticus, 1 Corinthians and Romans all proscribe homosexual behavior. Furthermore, within the history of Christianity, from the early Church Fathers to later Protestants, there exists a continual condemnation of homosexual acts. In short, the Christian tradition for over 2,000 years has overwhelmingly deplored any sort of homosexual undertaking, and Western countries, being Christian in origin, have significantly been influenced by Christian morals on this subject.
The extent of the disapproval of homosexuality, however, limits itself not only to Christianity. We also find proscriptions against excessive homosexual behavior in Plato, the Emperor Augustus (who encouraged marriage among the upper class for procreation) and among other ancient writers as well. In fact, homosexual “relationships,” at least as we know them, did not even exist among the Greeks and Romans. Although we commonly find pederasty among the ancients, evidence of same-age relationships scarcely exists. Although they recognized homosexual acts as common among certain classes, specific homosexual acts (especially those regarding passivity) were considered degrading for the upper class. Furthermore, heterosexual marriage remained the unquestioned norm, and the ancients did not even consider “gay marriage” as an option.
The definition of marriage has always implied heterosexuality. The word ‘marriage,’ from the Latin maritare, linguistically has built into it the idea of procreation. Maritare not only means to marry but also to impregnate, which is why commentators would speak of women simultaneously being married and impregnated. In short, purely in terms of semantics, the very notion of marriage is defined in terms of impregnation. Historically in the West, even in non-Christian cultures, the very idea of “gay marriage” would have been an oxymoron.
The legal arguments against “gay marriage” mirror the linguistic in many ways. In natural law, for example, the teleological purpose of marriage is procreation. The very survival of the species depends upon reproduction, so it is the goal of government to encourage fruitful marriages. It is also for this reason, both in pagan and Christian laws, that you find the failure to issue any progeny permissible grounds for divorce. Even in periods of European history when divorce would be prohibited for almost any reason, one can still find many instances of divorce for lack of offspring. Reproduction, through and through, has always been central to the legality of marriage, which is why no culture, until very recently, has even considered “gay marriage.”
Heterosexuals, however, are not alone in their condemnation of “gay marriage.” Historically minded homosexuals too – those who realize that history does not begin in 1968 – recognize homosexuality as an exception to long-standing historical norm, and are quite content with it remaining in the margins. As many have noted, people have always engaged in homosexual acts, but these acts have never been prescribed as the norm, especially not in relation to marriage. Following the cues of history, intellectual homosexuals prefer to keep homosexuality as a vibrant subculture, but nothing more. To transgress against a firmly planted historical paradigm, they argue, is Quixotic at best.
Marriage, if it is to survive, must remain a long-standing institution defined as the eternal union of man and a woman. There is a reason that wise statesmen for all of recorded history have prescribed heterosexual marriage as the norm; it is necessary for the survival of society. Undermine such an important institution, and you are undermining your very cultural legacy. To tamper with this institution in the spirit of social engineering is not only foolish, but also quite devastating. Destroy one of the central tenants of our society, and you are ripping away at the very fabric of our stability. Leveled buildings can easily be rebuilt, but once a nation’s moral fiber has been destroyed it is in serious trouble. Just read Toynbee.
omniabona@gmail.com
Visit their website at: http://www.conservatoroccidentalis.com
Responses to "A Historical Perspective on “Gay Marriage”"
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I agree with some of this article, and won't object to most of the rest. However, the final paragraph makes a logical leap that is not justified by anything in the preceding paragraphs. Mr Roberts assumes without any historical justification that permitting homosexual marriages would undermine heterosexual ones. In order to justify this, Mr. Roberts needs to present at least one historical case of a society that permitted homosexual marriage and suffered the destruction of heterosexual marriage as a consequence. But Mr. Roberts shows no such thing. He shows that no society in the past has ever permitted homosexual marriage. His reasoning reminds me of the joke about the fellow squatting and cawing every minute or two. When asked why, he explains that he does so to keep the pink elephants away. When told that there are no pink elephants, he says, "See! It works!"
It is undeniable that a society needs to insure its continuation through the upbringing of healthy children. I myself believe that our society should be doing more, not less, in this regard. However, Mr. Roberts fails to show how homosexual marriages will in any way interfere with the overall process of bringing up healthy children.
Comment by Chris Crawford | July 14, 2006
It was only until the mid-20th century that the Unitive and Procreative parts of Marriage were abandoned by mainsteam Christianity and Judaism. That's a whole lot of collective wisdom to disdain in favor of trite slogans like, "You've Come A Long Way, Baby.." Even the law says that a unconsummated marriage has no legal standing. The law gets, as the author suggests and clearly demonstrates, gets it's cue from traditional Judeo-Christian mores. Most scholars agree that when Rome allowed libertine notions to be ingrained in it's empire, the fall of this great millenium kingdom imploded and the barbarians stormed the gates utterly destroying the greatest, longest rule in human history. A message to us all.
Comment by Joseph | July 14, 2006
Mr. Crawford do you have anything better to do than critique an author's writing? The fact that no society in history has allowed gay marriage further proves his point that even in the presence of "homosexual" relationships, it was never brought into society as a norm. The fact that it has never been "tested" is irrelevant. What is relevant is these societies found no real reason to try it "just for fun, to see how it feels" because it's quite clear that when you cede to one party's wishes, the rest follow. I can make many truthful claims about what would happen if an asteroid slammed into New York City, but with your logic because it has not happened, I can't make such statements. I don't really understand the logic in your argument.
Comment by Andrew Gigax | July 14, 2006
Mr. Crawford,
Since no society has permitted homosexual marriage, then it would be hard to show a historical example of how it has destroyed heterosexual marriage. However, there is one very glaring example of a society that permitted rampant homosexuality, and it ended up destroying the society as a whole. That society would be Sodom and Gomorrah.
I have no problem invoking the religious and moral aspect of the homosexual marriage debate. Because that is eventually what it boils down to. Many otherwise disinterested or generally liberal people draw the line at homosexual marriage. But if it is just based on some sort of inherent gut level response then the opposition will not hold up over time. It is already weakening. It is what Lawrence Auster, who I otherwise have my differences with, calls an "unprincipled exception" to liberalism. The arguments against it eventually must not be just rational and practical but moral. Ultimately this argument comes down to, like so many others, the authority of Scripture and Christianity.
Homosexual marriage per se may not destroy heterosexual marriage. But the abandonment of the Christian faith that has historically informed this country will destroy our society.
Comment by Ned Brainard | July 14, 2006
You make two arguements:
first, that we have always done it the old way. Homosexual marriage has never been done before. I agree entirely. But, taken in isolation, this means nothing. There are lots of things that have stood the test of time and been discarded in the modern world. Slavery was a common practice all over the world until about 200 years ago; would you have argued in 1800 that slavery should not be abolished because it was such a fine old tradition? Torture was a universal practice until about 200 years ago; would you have argued in 1800 that torture should not be abolished because of its long tradition and universal acceptance?
Tradition is a good starting point for considering political decisions. I certainly have no objection to considering traditional factors. However, rationalism holds a higher place in my priorities, and when tradition conflicts with reason, I say it's time to dump tradition.
You have not produced any reasoning to suggest that homosexual marriage will do any harm to society. The only arguement you offer is tradition. Tradition by itself is an insufficient arguement.
You offer the example of an asteroid smashing into New York City — this supports my case. Yes, we both agree that, if an asteroid smashed into New York City, this would harm people. So show me how homosexual marriage would harm people.
Comment by Chris Crawford | July 14, 2006
Because of the contractual nature of marriage, governments historically have not recognized marriages among mentally impaired individuals. The fact that the mental health field has not recognized the inability to incorporate one’s physiology into one’s personality as a mental illness is one of many inconsistencies that has rendered the effectiveness of psychiatry to that of shamans and witch doctors. Gay marriage thus harms society by setting aside common sense in social interaction through the legal recognition of an aberration of human nature as being “normal.”
Comment by Jon Koniecki | July 14, 2006
Jon, you write, "Gay marriage thus harms society by setting aside common sense…"
First off, I asked how homosexual marriage would harm PEOPLE, not society. You have substituted a vague concept for a specific one. But more important, you assert that setting aside common sense harms society. Are you proposing that we make a law requiring everybody to exercise common sense? What kind of prison term or fine would you propose for somebody who violates common sense? And what, pray tell, is the legal definition of 'common sense'?
Comment by Chris Crawford | July 14, 2006
The "gay rights" movement kind of reminds me of the Womens Lib movement of the Sixties and Seventies and Eighties. Most women were upset by the radical things that the Womens Lib were demanding, and preferred the more traditional lifestyle. Eventually, the movement died because it lost support.
I think that the main reason gay rights activist want to legalize gay marriage is to say, "we legalized gay marriage!" and force everything to be equal; they don't actually care about the "love" arguments. As the author of the article said, many gay people are okay with having homosexuality be marginalized and sub-culturized. Many gay people find that the Gay Rights Movement doesn't speak for them, and hopefully it will die out too. Let's just hope it dies out before it has a chance to turn the morals of our society upside down.
Comment by Andrew | July 15, 2006
Chris, the lesson and proof you seek is contained in simple wisdom: When anything goes, everything will go…
While homosexual marriage itself may or may not harm us, many believe it is a critical piece of, or the beginning of, something bigger that will wear away at a society already suffering from the policies of secular humanism and moral relativity.
Many think of homosexual marriage as an essential ingredient and part of a collection of conditions and changes that threaten the weave of our moral fabric, the same way uranium is a piece of a destructive puzzle but not so destructive itself.
You state that no one can prove that homosexual marriage would harm traditional marriage, but I cannot prove that you marrying your 18 year-old sister would harm my marriage. The question is, do we really want to go down some paths? If we say yes to homosexual marriage, the answer to that question is, yes.
You operate from the assumption that this law should be examined on the basis of what harm would it do. Considering the doors it opens to arguments from any other group that would site legalized same-sex marriage as precedent for whatever brand of marriage makes them happy, I ask you to prove what good homosexual marriage would do?
There is little doubt that men and women were created/designed to mate and that our laws recognize the natural order of things.
Marriage emerged from natural law. As such, it is an example of a law that "feels right," as in the just right feeling we get when you see a young couple in the park strolling with the baby they just made together. We all know how important such scenes are, as they represent our life essence and natural procreation, which is why we all are here, including those who don’t practice it.
Homosexual marriage would emerge from an agreement among us that we should make an exception to what feels right and natural to us in order to provide parity to a group that feels excluded. If that group has a right to have laws that make them feel better, so does virtually any other group.
If you don't believe this is the case, explain on what grounds you would deny three women who together want to wed their father, brother? Or just one daughter who wants to marry dad?
Please don't argue that sex between the two could lead to a malformed child. Either could agree to be sterilized, could argue that malformed children are nobody's business or point to scientific evidence that the negative impacts of incest are not realized until at least the second or third generation.
The real challenge to you is, make a case for why you or any government should keep this dad and daughter apart. As you do, you will see how hard it is when your criteria consists of whether it makes them happy and whether it harms any other marriage.
That's why in cases of laws with moral implications it is essential to give the greater weight to what good our laws do society. It is easy to see that there is a stronger case for single man-woman marriages than other types, which of course is why laws supporting them have been the norm.
Gay marriage proponents promise there will be no negative impacts in their quest for something unprecedented in the history of mankind. Don't ask me what's wrong with that. The burden clearly is on those who seek this unprecedented change to law. Tell me what's right with it.
Remember, the right to be happy will require resolving many questions: try three siblings who want to marry both their parents? If it makes them happy and I cannot prove it will harm my marriage… ?
Comment by nick | July 15, 2006
I would suggest that Mr. Crawford take a look at the state of Western cultures with regard to the degradation of the family that has already taken place and the devastating effects that degradation has had with regard to shrinking Western populations and general moral decay.
This phenomena has it's roots primarily in the other modern decadent movements called women's liberation and sexual liberation (so called). These philosphies have devastated Western civilization with their war on the traditional family. Homosexual marriage is only an extension of this war and is another nail in our coofin.
Comment by Brandon | July 15, 2006
Chris, Show me some people that homosexuality and homosexual acts has helped. Face it, it's a sin, it's disgusting and it's perverted. I, for one, don't want any of 'them' around (if possible) me or my family.
Comment by Benny D. Martin | July 15, 2006
OK, nick, so you agree that homosexual marriage in and of itself hurts nobody; your concern is that it will lead to other legalizations that would hurt other people. This is called the 'slippery slope' argument, and it is known to be bad reasoning. The crucial assumption in the slippery slope argument is that the thing argued against is not intrinsicially objectionable, but will inevitably lead to something that IS intrinsically objectionable. The error lies in the assumption that you can't have the good thing without having the bad thing.
If, as you seem to acquiesce, homosexual marriage is not bad but incestual marriage is bad, then the solution is not to ban homosexual marriage — the solution is to ban incestual marriage. Let's keep our eyes on the ball here! Ban what's bad, not something else.
By the way, while you cannot prove that incestual marriage harms anybody, I certainly can. An incestual marriage will harm the children born of it by saddling them or their children with the risks of genetic defects. I can point to the children as somebody who is harmed by such a marriage — that's what satisfies the criterion of harm necessary for a good law.
You next argue that homosexual marriage 'feels wrong' to you. Well, gosh, should we ban something when your bunions ache? We need to be rational about these kinds of decisions, and appealing to your feelings just doesn't add up to any kind of reasonable arguement.
You set a new criterion for lawmaking in declaring a kind of 'guilty until proven innocent' standard. You can't establish that the activity you propose to ban does any harm, so you demand that I prove that this activity does any good. Is all human activity to be judged by this new standard? Must skydivers prove that their sport is beneficial to mankind in order to be permitted to practice it? Must knitting clubs prove the worthiness of their hobby in order to obtain a license to knit?
Brandon, you worry that homosexual marriage contributes to the decline of the family. I'm sure you'll agree that divorce is the direct threat to the family. I therefore ask you if, in divorce court, people are testifying, "Yes, I want a divorce because there are homosexuals out there getting married!" That seems a little strained to me, Brandon.
Benny, you ask me to show you some people whom homosexuality has helped. Well, why not ask them? What would happen if you approached a homosexual and asked, "Tell me, Mr. Homosexual, wouldn't you be a better human being if you weren't a disgusting, perverted person?" If they answered 'yes', to your question, then you'd have a case. But we both know that they'll answer 'no'.
I don't blame you one bit for not wanting them around you or your family. So don't invite them into your house! There, wasn't that easy? ;-)
Comment by Chris Crawford | July 15, 2006
Chris, it is to be expected that a liberal would not have the common sense to understand what “common sense” is. Gay marriage has divided our society only because an activist, liberal judiciary has abandoned reason, established law, and common sense to arbitrarily impose their own bone-headed, capricious views on a majority who do not share their insanity. An orderly society requires that the judiciary exercise reason and common sense in its decisions to protect peace-loving citizens from those who would do them bodily injury. An arbitrary and capricious judiciary leads to the breakdown of society as each individual citizen is forced to take the law into his own hands, leading to rule by the most vicious and powerful. Such judges deserve to be and, for the good of society, must be removed from the bench, preferably legally, although this is a reason for the 2nd amendment, as stated in the Declaration of Independence.
Homosexuals have already hurt people by diverting scarce medical research funds from more important diseases to find a cure for AIDS, an entirely avoidable disease. Homosexual practices are directly responsible for the spread of a wide variety of venereal diseases, including, but not limited to, AIDS, hepatitis, tuberculosis, gonorrhea, and syphilis. The impetus for homosexual marriage, besides rationalizing their aberrant behavior, is to tap into medical insurance and Social Security programs to care for the long term care of homosexuals, who, through their own lack of self control and promiscuity, have contracted these debilitating diseases. Homosexual marriage will thus further hurt people by diverting resources of these already financially strapped programs from their legitimate functions of providing for dependent children and their care-givers. Homosexual marriage will literally steal food from the mouths of orphans.
Comment by Jon Koniecki | July 16, 2006
Chris, now we're getting somewhere. You made a moral judgement and said incest is bad and pointed to offspring (I asked you to avoid that reasoning, but… ). If children are your reason, suppose you tell us why two gay brothers should not marry.
Comment by nick | July 16, 2006
Chris,
You make my point for me. The massive divorce rate in this country is a direct result of the cultural upheavel that I pointed to earlier. The gay agenda is the next level, the full scope of the potential damage being difficult to predict.
Comment by Chris | July 16, 2006
Jon, I am a little confused by your argument that homosexual marriages will "literally steal food from the mouths of orphans". It seems to me that if homosexuals who are going to be having relations anyway have a vehicle to announce their monogamous intentions, they might be more likely to not spread around VDs. And let's face it, marriage is only a piece of paper. Furthermore, in our health care system, people get treated without judgement. Gays are going to cost a certain amount whether they're married or not.
And just to throw this out there, maybe the problem isn't that gays want to marry. Maybe the problem is that we have attached too many financial incentives to marriage. I've met heteros who got married for insurance reasons.
If marriage remained a sacrament - a religious and familial obligation - the government sanctioning or refusing to sanction gay marriage would not be an issue.
Comment by Al Howard | July 16, 2006
I've asked this question on other threads, maybe here someone can answer it for the sake of all of our understanding…how is a child better off when raised by two same-sex, homosexual parents?
If there is a logical reason why a child would be better off, then maybe the proponents of SSM could start to gain some traction, otherwise, they are just baying at the moon.
Comment by Tyler Dawbin | July 17, 2006
Chris, I don't agree that homosexual marriage hurts nobody. I think it makes a mockery of marriage. Why not allow marriage to one's dog, or to a tree? Society can and does set limits. Homosexual behavior is disgusting (yes, my opinion, but so what, I am entitled to enact laws based soley on my opinion, such as laws against animal cruelty, or laws to forbid copyright enfringement) and dangerous (if you require proof for that statement you are not fit to argue with).
The slippery slope argument is not invalid when discussing Constitutional Law. The law changes in increments, and one president leads to another. If the law allows homosexual marriage, there is no rational reason to allow that but to forbid polygamy or incestuous marriage. You would counter that children of incestuous marriages COULD be hurt. Well, homosexuals spread AIDS, but that doesn't cause us to outlaw their behavior (based on the current state of the law). You could argue that they can take precaution against AIDS, but incestuous marriage partners could take precautions to avoid children.
Homosexuals are not denied the same rights as heterosexuals. If they want to marry someone of the opposite sex, they may do so. I can't marry my sister, or three women, but that doesn't mean my rights are being violated. It simply means I must play by the rules society has set forth. Personally, I will do everything in my power to uphold those rules.
Comment by M. Ray Johnson | July 17, 2006
Chris, I'll begin by identifying myself as the same person with whom you disagreed with earlier. My wife is paranoid about my participation on sites such as this, and, what with the dark comments about assassinating judges and some of the invective levelled against me, I think it best to exercise some prudence. Hence the change in handle.
You imply that the high divorce rate is the direct result of gay marriage. Inasmuch as the divorce rate has been high for decades, and gay marriage did not begin in any amount until just the last few years, I find the causal relationship you posit to be without credence.
Tyler Dawbin, I agree that there is no convincing evidence that a child raised by homosexual parents will be as healthy as a child raised by heterosexual parents. However, inasmuch as adoption is the only route by which such a couple could obtain a child, I should think that adoption is the place to block such efforts, not marriage.
Comment by Chris2 | July 17, 2006
Homosexuals do not need a legal recognition of marriage to have a monogamous relationship. For that matter, if this were a perfect world, government intervention would not be essential for a heterosexual monogamous relationship either. Because this is not a perfect world, government intervention is essential to enforce the social contract that a man and woman enter into when they become married. As it is, a woman, who has set aside her career for child rearing, and her children, are at a tremendous financial disadvantage if the husband should desert them or should die. The legal aspects of marriage, with its financial incentives, is intended to ameliorate this situation, providing sustenance and health care for the widow and children and an equitable division of property in a separation. It is this safety net that homosexuals intend to tap into by pushing for gay marriage, thus putting additional strains on an already financially strapped system.
The closing, due to financial pressure, of the county-run hospital, where my wife was an RN, provides a specific example of the magnitude of the social costs imposed on society by homosexual behavior. One whole floor, draining over ¼ the operating costs, was needed for AIDS patients. In addition to the financial costs, at least one nurse died each year from tuberculosis, contracted from the irresponsible behavior of the patients and their visitors.
Comment by Jon Koniecki | July 17, 2006
Here's a question: If marriage is so important to homosexuals, why aren't they having their own, and showing how good they can be?
The question answers itself: They don't want marrige. They want approval. They want society to say, "Yes, we approve of your actions. Sure come visit my 12-year -old son. Sure, talk to my 5-year-old daughter's class at school." No sane parent, nor anyone who is sincerely interested in the future of the human race would agree to that. So it all has to be done by the back door.
The entire homosexual agenda is founded on deceit and trickery, on hoping to fool enough people long enough to drive the society over the cliff. The entirety of society is founded on the family that results from the mother/father, husband/wife, grandparents, aunts, uncles, all of it. Destroy that, by saying that anything at all can be called a "family", and society will topple over that cliff. They (homosexual activists) are just enough self-deceived to believe that the resultant anarchy would still protect their rights. In fact, history shows that in any anarchy, and the subsequent totalitarianism, the inconvenient minority is the first to go.
Comment by Gregg Shepherd | July 17, 2006
“[3] Because of its vital importance to society, while the people through their governments have always encouraged marriage, they have always regulated it.” – Ninth Circuit Court Opinion, Smelt and Hammer vs. Orange Co. http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/OrangeCtyOpinion.pdf
Even the Ninth Circuit believes marriage is so vitally important to society that the people regulate it.
It seems to me that the arguments so far have fallen into the “why-not?” vs. “why?” argument. The burden of proof falls on the advocate of social change, especially a proposal to change something as fundamental as marriage, and “why not” is just not a sufficient justification.
But for those who insist, here is an article by a homosexual who explains “why not?” http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3650 .
Comment by G of Sedona | July 18, 2006
Chris Wrote:
"You have not produced any reasoning to suggest that homosexual marriage will do any harm to society"
(and then, inexplicably said)
" I asked how homosexual marriage would harm PEOPLE, not society."
(but nevermind all that)
The answer, for me at least, is simple: Legal recognition of same-sex marriages will mean than MORE children,
not less, will grow up without either a mother or a father. I consider this harmful both to the child, and to society.
Two moms can never equal "Mom and Dad", and separate is NOT equal.
Comment by Marty | July 18, 2006
Top Ten Reasons Gay Marriage Is Right
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2006/07/ten-reasons-updated.html
– "Western countries, being Christian in origin, have significantly been influenced by Christian morals on this subject."
Top Ten: In a pluralistic society, the only good religion is the one that approves of gay marriage. All other religions are bigoted and should be chased from the public square, or at the very least from adoption services.
– "In fact, homosexual 'relationships,' at least as we know them, did not even exist among the Greeks and Romans."
Top Ten: Gay marriage has been around forever and is nothing new. Gay divorce is as ancient as queer theory itself.
— "Historically minded homosexuals too – those who realize that history does not begin in 1968 – recognize homosexuality as an exception to long-standing historical norm, and are quite content with it remaining in the margins."
Top Ten: Gay marriage will make people into queers, in the same frumpy way that the unwashed masses are oppressed by heteronormativity. Anyone who watches Queer Eye for the Straight Guy can see that.
— "Undermine such an important institution, and you are undermining your very cultural legacy. [...] Destroy one of the central tenants of our society, and you are ripping away at the very fabric of our stability."
Top Ten: According to the best social science evidence, gay marriage is valid because every gay couple is victimized by the deep and scarring hardship of social infertility. Being gay is like being really old and infertile. But without the bad skin condition and the rumpled fashion sense.
– "In natural law, for example, the teleological purpose of marriage is procreation. The very survival of the species depends upon reproduction, so it is the goal of government to encourage fruitful marriages."
Top Ten: In fairness and for the sake of justice through diversity, no sexual identity can be denied the right to be included in marriage. All forms of sexual expression are natural because nothing is unnatural if it can be done. Except incest and plural marriage and sex-integration and other stuff.
– "We need to be rational about these kinds of decisions, and appealing to your feelings just doesn’t add up to any kind of reasonable arguement."
Top Ten: Enacting gay marriage is about justice and fairness for gay people. It is not about justice and fairness for anyone else without the political clout of pressure groups armed with gaydar and artistic merit..
– "how is a child better off when raised by two same-sex, homosexual parents?"
Top Ten: Children benefit from having double moms or double dads. That's why we outlaw polygamous and polyamorous families.
— "Legal recognition of same-sex marriages will mean that MORE children, not less, will grow up without either a mother or a father. I consider this harmful both to the child, and to society."
Top Ten: Gay marriage will rescue all of the orphans who languish in sperm banks and IVF clinics. Turkey Basters Unlimited has already saved hundreds of millions of children.
/Satire
Comment by Chairm | July 19, 2006
So you think the government should have the regulating power to drive Catholics out of adoption services because you don't agree with the Church's beliefs? That doesn't sound like freedom to me.
Many countries today have fertility rates that are below replacement levels. In other words, we're going extinct because pleasure rather than children has become the purpose behind sex and marriage. How can anyone say that isn't proof that marriage is an important part of a stable society?
Comment by Yvette | July 19, 2006
Hi Yvette, the previous comment was satirical.
Top Ten Reasons Gay Marriage Is Right
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2006/07/ten-reasons-updated.html
I agree, SSM argumentation sidelines the core of marriage: "The combination of integrating the sexes and responsible procreation."
Comment by Chairm | July 20, 2006
Funny someone mentioned Rome, Rome stopped being a republic because of pirate raiding on
its coast, and a new emporer was elected because it was said that the republic needed a strong leader
who could protect it. Another little lesson to us all. Also the comparing of gay marriage to the decay
of a society is ridiculous. Most societies (the more secular the more obvious) show signs of gay
behaviours. Most of these societies were the great powers of their time, and they got that way
through endorsing plays, arts and writings… in other words… gay stuff. So if looked from a strictly
historical perspective, the societies that we got our cultures and values from: Roman (philo), Greek
(drama), Italian Renaissance (art) , Empirial Britain (the novel) are all very "gay" cultures. Although
I don't support gay marriage myself, I also think its stupid to think it will "dissolve" our culture when
history shows that the more secular and excepting a culture is the stronger it becomes.
Comment by Erik | July 20, 2006
No one can rightly suggest that gay marriage would end heterosexual marriage unless, for some reason, every heterosexual suddenly becomes gay. It's a riduculous arguement, made all too frequently. Often overshadowed in this debate, are the rights of human beings, no matter their sexuality. If you are happy to have your roads, hospitals and schools among other things, funded by taxpaying homosexual Americans, why shouldn't said homosexual people receive benefits automatically handed out to a man and a woman partnership?
The word 'marraige' is used as a stumbling block to the realistic picture; gay men and women deserve to be treated as people. Okay, some will say, but they aren't normal. An opinion that is based on ignorance and a cut-and-paste appreciation for the Bible.
Are we going to begin stoning adulterous women? Are we going to sacrifice our first born?
Comment by Lisa | July 25, 2006