As closing arguments are being heard in a California court concerning the future of gay marraige in that state, an interesting article appearing in The American Spectator by David Gutmann raises an interesting argument against it. In an earlier post I mentioned that homosexuals enjoy much shorter life expectancies and a higher risk of mental disorders for such a liberating choice of lifestyle. Mr Gutmann however, approaches the issue from a societal level...
"In short, heterosexual marriage acts to bring and hold the sexes together, despite the centrifugal forces that would (and often do) pull them apart -- the same forces that would split society into chronically hostile, gendered camps.
But despite any superficial resemblances, in ritual and contractual language, to heterosexual unions, homosexual marriages have the opposite effect: they function to confirm, deepen and even celebrate the gender split, and import it from childhood into adulthood. Gay marriage perpetuates into later life the homoeroticism of the pre-pubertal boy and girl: men marry men; women marry women, and -- except at Lesbi-Gay street demonstrations -- rarely if ever the twain shall meet.
No life-way that splits men from women, and celebrates their separation, should be granted equal dignity with heterosexual marriage, which brings and binds them together.
So Let homosexuals have their special unions, and the civil rights that properly go with them; but we should not grant those unions the title and sacramental status of Marriage. The institution of marriage is already in enough trouble as it is, and -- as indicated by falling birth-rates, single parenthood, and welfare dependency -- it is weakest in those enlightened societies which also accredit gay marriage. We should not -- in order to please a minority -- mix a social pathogen and its antagonist into the same medicine, and continue to call it a cure. Americans are voting, across our states, and with good reason, to keep the two forms of association separate."
But despite any superficial resemblances, in ritual and contractual language, to heterosexual unions, homosexual marriages have the opposite effect: they function to confirm, deepen and even celebrate the gender split, and import it from childhood into adulthood. Gay marriage perpetuates into later life the homoeroticism of the pre-pubertal boy and girl: men marry men; women marry women, and -- except at Lesbi-Gay street demonstrations -- rarely if ever the twain shall meet.
No life-way that splits men from women, and celebrates their separation, should be granted equal dignity with heterosexual marriage, which brings and binds them together.
So Let homosexuals have their special unions, and the civil rights that properly go with them; but we should not grant those unions the title and sacramental status of Marriage. The institution of marriage is already in enough trouble as it is, and -- as indicated by falling birth-rates, single parenthood, and welfare dependency -- it is weakest in those enlightened societies which also accredit gay marriage. We should not -- in order to please a minority -- mix a social pathogen and its antagonist into the same medicine, and continue to call it a cure. Americans are voting, across our states, and with good reason, to keep the two forms of association separate."
Before continuing on, I feel it necessary to bow 3X to the Altar of Political Correctness by stating...
- I do not care what consenting adults do behind closed doors.
- I do not care what consenting adults do behind closed doors.
- I do not care what consenting adults do behind closed doors.
There. I would go even a bit further by saying that such matters as inheritance and life insurance should be extended to domestic partners. Mr Gutmann raises some interesting points in his article. If anyone is aware of a society that granted wholesale, societal acceptance of homosexual marriage and that country went on to be a moderate, if not spectacular success, please mention it here. I'm not personally aware of any though.
17 comments:
For the most part I find it difficult to follow and comment on your blog JD. The reason is that for the most part I am apolitical.
I vote and am glad that there has been in the past a means to access government and participate in the political process.
I for one am not sure democracy was a good idea. It hasn't seemed to work very well. If I had my choice I would opt for the Theocracy. Monarchy's didn't seem to work and I certainly am opposed to dictatorships.
Special interest, well-heeled minorities have seem to do so much better in this system of ours. I say that because so little common sense, decency, and morality survives. Don't get me wrong I love our country, survived in the USMC, and realize that people die every day to get into this country.
I like your blog and I follow it, I just wanted to let you know why sometimes I don't comment - it isn't because I disagree I just don't know what to say.
In this case, you are more generous than I. I would not extend any rights or benefits to such deviant behavior.
For the record, no civilization has survived including the Roman empire when a country has abandoned God to the point of Romans 1.
I think this is an interesting point JD. Like you, I do not care what people do behind closed doors, and believe that homosexual unions should have the civil rights that go with those unions (joint health insurance, tax breaks, etc.). But as a CA resident I oppose homosexual marriage because marriage is sacred.
For Christians, our God Jesus Christ said that marriage symbolizes His relationship with the church. Other religions have their own special beliefs, but all seem to hold marriage in a significant place.
I've often wondered why God put men and women together when it's such a challenge on so many levels. Relating to other same gender people is much simpler. I've often thought it's to help us overcome our natural bent toward selfishness. There is no place in our life where we have a greater opportunity to be selfless and serve others as in marriage.
Thanks you for both of your comments.
I think the most interesting point raised by Gutmann is the following...
"men marry men; women marry women, and -- except at Lesbi-Gay street demonstrations -- rarely if ever the twain shall meet."
I think that as a society becomes increasingly homosexual that men and women would, as a result, have much less contact with one another and there would be a more strained relationship between the sexes.
Seriously JD, American Spectator? Precisely what would you expect to see in an American Spectator piece about Gay marriage? I could just as easily quote some GLADD rag with an article that says the opposite, but what would that prove, other than slanted article are easy to find on Google?
Congratulations...you found yet another article and/or source that simply affirms what you want to believe. Comforting I am sure, but not much of a stretch intellectually.
Ahh Steve,
You didnt want to offer up any substantive criticism of the above article, did you?
Gutmann argues that there's some split between men and women. Rather than cite scientific evidence, he vaguely says it is caused by "centrifugal forces".
That's odd because the genders are more equal now than ever before in the history of civilization. In most places it's no longer taboo or unusual to see platonic friendships between women and men.
His solution is crazier. He's basically saying that they way to bring people together is to force them into such relationships. So if men and women are separated by "centrifugal forces", doesn't that make their union also "unnatural"?
It's not only a poor argument, it's also offensive. I'm a straight married man. Like all the gay people I know personally, I have had female (as well as male) friends my whole life.
If I were gay and forced to marry a woman I did not love, I would be severely depressed and would withdraw from all relationships: both my marriage and any friends I have.
If I were gay and forced to marry a woman I did not love, I would be severely depressed and would withdraw from all relationships: both my marriage and any friends I have
That's assuming of course that your claimed "gayness" is actually a natural process. Link
What do you mean a "natural process"? And how does linking to a WND opinion piece prove your point?
Research on sexual orientation has shown that it is determined by a combination of hormonal, genetic, and environmental influences. The American Psychological Association stopped considering it unnatural almost 4 decades ago when it stopped classifying it as a disorder.
I'm basing my opinions on science. If you can't do better than WND.com, then I am wasting my time here.
Actually, I shouldnt say "your" gayness, but gayness in general. Pardon me.
Offering up a substantive criticism is the point: you are parroting an article that basically just tells you what you want to hear. That's not substance JD, it's just a form of affirmation. It's the intellectual equivalent of getting a pat on the head by your father.
Do you think you will sway an opinion?
Do you think a Gay person will read your post or the A.S. article and say "Damn, I no longer want to be Gay now"?
The American Psychological Association stopped considering it unnatural almost 4 decades ago when it stopped classifying it as a disorder
Before we go any further, do you accept the fact that homosexuals have significantly shorter life spans and much higher incidences of mental health disorders as opposed to heterosexuals?
I couldnt care less what the APA's classification is. Scientist and doctor organizations are as politicized as any other and to deny such would be to fly in the face of the obvious.
Offering up a substantive criticism is the point
OK, let me narrow this down for you. The above author basically states that as a society becomes increasingly homosexual that men and women would, as a result, have much less contact with one another and there would be a more strained relationship between the sexes. Agree or disgree?
Blacks have about a 10% shorter life span than whites JD
I'm still waiting for the link to the support group for those who are struggling with all of the changes now that they are "formally black".
as society can't become "more" of something if that thing isn't a choice
"And NYT shareholders wonder why their stock is diving towards zero. No doubt we can look forward to similarly ground-breaking stories about how child-bearing rates are surprisingly low in San Francisco, California and electronic dance pop is popular in Sydney, Austrialia.
I did, however, quite enjoy the reporter's complete misreading of the socionomic implications of economic hard times. Hard times create hard men, it's historically been the decadence of wealth and power that produces Peak Gay." Link
Your argument is based on the ASSUMPTION that homosexuality is always a choice, which you have never proven (instead you offer comments from groups that simply want to believe that it is)
Actually, more often than not, I think it's a lifestyle choice made in response by somebody working out their Daddy Issues. Abuse may play a role as well.
I'm really not a psychologist nor do I pretend to be one. Causal factors are best left to another day.
I am completely aware of any genetic trait that someone can point to and say "Ah-HA! and demonstrate that a particular anamoly is inherent to all homosexuals of whatever sex.
"Actually, more often than not, I think it's a lifestyle choice made in response by somebody working out their Daddy Issues. Abuse may play a role as well. "
Do chimpanzees and dolphins and some species of birds have the same "daddy issues"?
Are these species having genital-anal sex? I really don't know.
In its effort to present homosexuality as normal, the homosexual movement[1] turned to science in an attempt to prove three major premises:
1. Homosexuality is genetic or innate;
2. Homosexuality is irreversible;
3. Since animals engage in same-sex sexual behavior, homosexuality is natural.
Keenly aware of its inability to prove the first two premises, the homosexual movement pins its hopes on the third, animal homosexuality. Link
I didn't know what NARTH was so I searched.
In the first ten results were such gems as:
Meet Geo, The Male Prostitute Hired By NARTH Member ...
Dr. Lisa Diamond: 'NARTH Distorted My Research'
NARTH past-president accused of misquoting academic work ...
Agreement with NARTH's leaders' views is the "primary criterion for membership", rather than an individual's professional qualifications.
Heh.
Post a Comment