Why Gay Marriage is Dangerous
There is a push in this country to legalize "gay marriage" and a push back to institute laws banning the same. What is the deal here?
Okay, first of all the phrase sounds a lot like "dry" water to me. There is no such animal. A marriage is a union between a male and a female. This has been the way of marriage for hundreds, indeed, thousands of years. The entire idea of a "gay marriage" sounds to me like a cat that barks or sweltering hot ice. It doesn't make any sense. The idea of marriage was to cement a hopefully permanent union of a man and a woman and create a protective union within which any children might be nurtured. Obviously a gay union won't be producing any children any time soon.
Yet it is a hot button item. Homosexuals are trying and in some cases succeeding in co-opting a heterosexual tradition and getting some measure of legal status. They claim it is a right that is being denied them.
Thomas Sowell rather eloquently argues to the contrary.
"Of all the phony arguments for gay marriage, the phoniest is the argument that it is a matter of equal rights. Marriage is not a right extended to individuals by the government. It is a restriction on the rights they already have.
People who are simply living together can make whatever arrangements they want, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. They can divide up their worldly belongings 50-50 or 90-10 or whatever other way they want. They can make their union temporary or permanent or subject to cancellation at any time.
Marriage is a restriction. If my wife buys an automobile with her own money, under California marriage laws I automatically own half of it, whether or not my name is on the title. Whether that law is good, bad, or indifferent, it is a limitation of our freedom to arrange such things as we ourselves might choose. This is just one of many decisions that marriage laws take out of our hands.
Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the life of the law is not logic but experience. Marriage laws have evolved through centuries of experience with couples of opposite sexes -- and the children that result from such unions. Society asserts its stake in the decisions made by restricting the couples' options.
Society has no such stake in the outcome of a union between two people of the same sex. Transferring all those laws to same-sex couples would make no more sense than transferring the rules of baseball to football."
Now I hear the voices rising in protest. "But without marriage, gays in committed relationships have no rights to visit each other in hospitals, have joint ownership of land and so on!" Not true, actually, for people have been entering into various partnerships since the beginning of recorded time. Nevertheless, there are other ways to address this issue.
Ramesh Ponnuru writes on this subject in the National Reviw Online. Concerning recent legislation proposed by Colorado state senator Shawn Mitchell:
"Mitchell’s idea is to make certain benefits available to gay couples — and to many other pairs of people. His legislation would make it easier, for example, for gay men to arrange to give each other a say in their medical care by becoming “reciprocal beneficiaries.” But two brothers, or a brother and sister, or two male friends, could enter the same arrangement. Thus there would be no recognition of homosexual relationships as such."
In truth, such legislation would not please "gay marriage" advocates because they don't really want what they say they want. The issue is not really about getting married, it is about other agendas.
Agenda # One: Acquiring society's official imprimateur of respectability on homosexual relationships. Homosexuality has been decriminalized in this country but the majority of citizens still consider it an aberrant behavior. Making "gay marriage" legal goes a long way towards erasing the stigma of homosexual relationships.
Agenda # Two: Partner benefits. Many companies give medical coverage to spouses and children, but not to co-habiting couples. Homosexuals want a benefit not usually given to other co-habiting-but-not-married couples by having the option of marriage available to them.
Agenda # Three: Advance the cause of the continued breakdown of sexual mores in society.
To agenda one, I say that society has no interest in encouraging homosexuality. In a normal, free country we would neither shoot gays on sight nor pass them a marriage license. It is aberrant activity but if it is not prohibited by law then it becomes a choice left up to the people involved. Just don't come to the rest of us and ask us to tie a ribbon on it.
To agenda two, I say it is up to the individual company whether to offer "partner benefits" to people living together whether of opposite or same sex. Some companies do this already and some don't. A same sex couple can seek employment with a company that does, or seek to get the rules changed at that company. I don't believe that we should legislate on this issue either way. Let companies and their employees come to the decisions they prefer. Trust me, employees have a say, because a company needs to attract the right people (not talking about MacDonalds here, okay?) and the market or needs of a few key employees can drive this decision one way or the other.
Now to agenda three. I have been accused of setting up a "straw man" with this argument but I will argue strongly that I do not. I believe that much of the radical element of homosexual advocates seek to push the envelope farther than most people realize. Homosexual advocates, in association with the ACLU and NAMBLA, are seeking to change other laws.
Consider this exerpt from an article found at traditionalvalues.org:
"According to David Thorstad, in "The State Of Gay Liberation," homosexuals must get back to a "radical vision of sexual freedom for all. We need to reaffirm our place in the great variety of same-sex behaviors that exist-have always existed-in human societies. We dare not allow our homosexual gift to be alienated from us by the limited vision, stifling political correctness, and erotophobic provincialism." In short, homosexuals should openly support the promotion of adult/child sex!
Professor Mohr argues that the use of "gay youth" is a key to gaining political and cultural victories in the U.S. He writes: "...these brave youth are key to culture's change on gay issues. Thanks to them, increasingly people know someone for whom being gay is an issue. Thanks to them the gay movement is achieving critical mass." Bruce Mirken claims that radical AIDS activism is what will save the homosexual movement from decline.
The effort to push adult/child sex isn't limited to these three homosexual activists. It is part of the overall homosexual movement. As author Mary Eberstadt wrote in "Pedophilia Chic: Reconsidered" in The Weekly Standard, (Jan. 1, 2001): "The reason why the public is being urged to reconsider boy pedophilia is that this 'question,' settled though it may be in the opinions and laws of the rest of the country, is demonstrably not yet settled within certain parts of the gay rights movement." Eberstadt notes that as the homosexual movement becomes more mainstream, this "question" about adult/child sex will become more prominent. Homosexuals who desire sex with children will do exactly what the ACLU is doing in Kansas: Destroy all laws banning sex between adults and children."
The homosexual will argue on logical grounds that he is seeking to fulfill his sexual orientation. Then comes the pedophile asking for the same. This is an avowed goal of NAMBLA and also many in the homosexual advocacy movement. So then here comes the necrophile demanding the right to have sex with corpses and now comes the sado-masochist and so on. You say straw man, I say I see forces aligned in hopes of eliminating any restraint on sexuality in our society.
Frank V. York and Robert H. Knight published a 32-page paper on the linkage between the homosexual agenda and pedophilian which you can peruse here. It is not a matter of a bunch of conservatives running around yelling that "the sky is falling" but a recognition that evil is on the move and it has a plan.
Go ahead and reject the notion that "gay marriage" brings on the legalization of necrophilia. Fine, but it is a fact that advocates of "gay marriage" are trying to bring about pedophilia. One only has to go to the NAMBLA site and read what they say and keep in mind this is what they are willing to admit to the general public. I quote from the site:
"Freedom is indivisible. The liberation of children, women, boy-lovers, and homosexuals in general, can occur only as complementary facets of the same dream." -- David Thorstad
Sounds like a nightmare to me!
Okay, first of all the phrase sounds a lot like "dry" water to me. There is no such animal. A marriage is a union between a male and a female. This has been the way of marriage for hundreds, indeed, thousands of years. The entire idea of a "gay marriage" sounds to me like a cat that barks or sweltering hot ice. It doesn't make any sense. The idea of marriage was to cement a hopefully permanent union of a man and a woman and create a protective union within which any children might be nurtured. Obviously a gay union won't be producing any children any time soon.
Yet it is a hot button item. Homosexuals are trying and in some cases succeeding in co-opting a heterosexual tradition and getting some measure of legal status. They claim it is a right that is being denied them.
Thomas Sowell rather eloquently argues to the contrary.
"Of all the phony arguments for gay marriage, the phoniest is the argument that it is a matter of equal rights. Marriage is not a right extended to individuals by the government. It is a restriction on the rights they already have.
People who are simply living together can make whatever arrangements they want, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. They can divide up their worldly belongings 50-50 or 90-10 or whatever other way they want. They can make their union temporary or permanent or subject to cancellation at any time.
Marriage is a restriction. If my wife buys an automobile with her own money, under California marriage laws I automatically own half of it, whether or not my name is on the title. Whether that law is good, bad, or indifferent, it is a limitation of our freedom to arrange such things as we ourselves might choose. This is just one of many decisions that marriage laws take out of our hands.
Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the life of the law is not logic but experience. Marriage laws have evolved through centuries of experience with couples of opposite sexes -- and the children that result from such unions. Society asserts its stake in the decisions made by restricting the couples' options.
Society has no such stake in the outcome of a union between two people of the same sex. Transferring all those laws to same-sex couples would make no more sense than transferring the rules of baseball to football."
Now I hear the voices rising in protest. "But without marriage, gays in committed relationships have no rights to visit each other in hospitals, have joint ownership of land and so on!" Not true, actually, for people have been entering into various partnerships since the beginning of recorded time. Nevertheless, there are other ways to address this issue.
Ramesh Ponnuru writes on this subject in the National Reviw Online. Concerning recent legislation proposed by Colorado state senator Shawn Mitchell:
"Mitchell’s idea is to make certain benefits available to gay couples — and to many other pairs of people. His legislation would make it easier, for example, for gay men to arrange to give each other a say in their medical care by becoming “reciprocal beneficiaries.” But two brothers, or a brother and sister, or two male friends, could enter the same arrangement. Thus there would be no recognition of homosexual relationships as such."
In truth, such legislation would not please "gay marriage" advocates because they don't really want what they say they want. The issue is not really about getting married, it is about other agendas.
Agenda # One: Acquiring society's official imprimateur of respectability on homosexual relationships. Homosexuality has been decriminalized in this country but the majority of citizens still consider it an aberrant behavior. Making "gay marriage" legal goes a long way towards erasing the stigma of homosexual relationships.
Agenda # Two: Partner benefits. Many companies give medical coverage to spouses and children, but not to co-habiting couples. Homosexuals want a benefit not usually given to other co-habiting-but-not-married couples by having the option of marriage available to them.
Agenda # Three: Advance the cause of the continued breakdown of sexual mores in society.
To agenda one, I say that society has no interest in encouraging homosexuality. In a normal, free country we would neither shoot gays on sight nor pass them a marriage license. It is aberrant activity but if it is not prohibited by law then it becomes a choice left up to the people involved. Just don't come to the rest of us and ask us to tie a ribbon on it.
To agenda two, I say it is up to the individual company whether to offer "partner benefits" to people living together whether of opposite or same sex. Some companies do this already and some don't. A same sex couple can seek employment with a company that does, or seek to get the rules changed at that company. I don't believe that we should legislate on this issue either way. Let companies and their employees come to the decisions they prefer. Trust me, employees have a say, because a company needs to attract the right people (not talking about MacDonalds here, okay?) and the market or needs of a few key employees can drive this decision one way or the other.
Now to agenda three. I have been accused of setting up a "straw man" with this argument but I will argue strongly that I do not. I believe that much of the radical element of homosexual advocates seek to push the envelope farther than most people realize. Homosexual advocates, in association with the ACLU and NAMBLA, are seeking to change other laws.
Consider this exerpt from an article found at traditionalvalues.org:
"According to David Thorstad, in "The State Of Gay Liberation," homosexuals must get back to a "radical vision of sexual freedom for all. We need to reaffirm our place in the great variety of same-sex behaviors that exist-have always existed-in human societies. We dare not allow our homosexual gift to be alienated from us by the limited vision, stifling political correctness, and erotophobic provincialism." In short, homosexuals should openly support the promotion of adult/child sex!
Professor Mohr argues that the use of "gay youth" is a key to gaining political and cultural victories in the U.S. He writes: "...these brave youth are key to culture's change on gay issues. Thanks to them, increasingly people know someone for whom being gay is an issue. Thanks to them the gay movement is achieving critical mass." Bruce Mirken claims that radical AIDS activism is what will save the homosexual movement from decline.
The effort to push adult/child sex isn't limited to these three homosexual activists. It is part of the overall homosexual movement. As author Mary Eberstadt wrote in "Pedophilia Chic: Reconsidered" in The Weekly Standard, (Jan. 1, 2001): "The reason why the public is being urged to reconsider boy pedophilia is that this 'question,' settled though it may be in the opinions and laws of the rest of the country, is demonstrably not yet settled within certain parts of the gay rights movement." Eberstadt notes that as the homosexual movement becomes more mainstream, this "question" about adult/child sex will become more prominent. Homosexuals who desire sex with children will do exactly what the ACLU is doing in Kansas: Destroy all laws banning sex between adults and children."
The homosexual will argue on logical grounds that he is seeking to fulfill his sexual orientation. Then comes the pedophile asking for the same. This is an avowed goal of NAMBLA and also many in the homosexual advocacy movement. So then here comes the necrophile demanding the right to have sex with corpses and now comes the sado-masochist and so on. You say straw man, I say I see forces aligned in hopes of eliminating any restraint on sexuality in our society.
Frank V. York and Robert H. Knight published a 32-page paper on the linkage between the homosexual agenda and pedophilian which you can peruse here. It is not a matter of a bunch of conservatives running around yelling that "the sky is falling" but a recognition that evil is on the move and it has a plan.
Go ahead and reject the notion that "gay marriage" brings on the legalization of necrophilia. Fine, but it is a fact that advocates of "gay marriage" are trying to bring about pedophilia. One only has to go to the NAMBLA site and read what they say and keep in mind this is what they are willing to admit to the general public. I quote from the site:
"Freedom is indivisible. The liberation of children, women, boy-lovers, and homosexuals in general, can occur only as complementary facets of the same dream." -- David Thorstad
Sounds like a nightmare to me!