Where's the birth certificate

Free and Strong America

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Nothing says 'Happy Easter!' Quite Like Radical Gay Activism







While many of us flocked to our respective churches to commerate out Saviour's resurrection, Clay Waters over at Newsbusters informs us that some people can't let go of the homosexual agenda for one minute, even on the holiest day of the year...





"The New York Times’s coverage of Easter Sunday was sparse, but the paper did mark the Christian holiday in its own inimitable way, by spotlighting anti-traditional gay rights activism.



Reporter Liz Robbins was at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Manhattan on Sunday morning to hear Archbishop Timothy Dolan delivers his Easter homily to nearly 3,000. St. Patrick’s also marked the “finish line” of the Easter Day parade. But her story Monday, “A Sermon Of Rebirth, And a Rally For Rights,” was pre-occupied by a tiny band of protesters in support of gay marriage, “A small group of about 25 people stood while temperatures soared near 80 degrees.” For Robbins, two dozen people standing outside in “near 80 degree” heat (was it really that onerous?) was worth both special mention and 364 of the story’s 634 words."





Really. Can't we give a rest on just ONE day out of the year? I can see the need to show off any newly aquired spring fashions but National Coming Out Day is just around the corner in early October and I hear tell that Tom Ford is pulling out all the stops and breaking new ground for his upcoming fall lineup.



This segues neatly into an earlier, unanswered objection raised by GS.....




"you'd (JD) withhold marriage from monogamaous and disease-free lesbian couples in Ohio because 46% of gay men (in San Francisco) say that they prefer open relationships"




My first point would be to let me ask you a question GS. Are you aware of any coordinated effort whatsoever amongst the gay community to uncouple those who advocate multiple partners with the minority that are more monogamous? I'm not aware of a single one at all and it seems like there is this sort of "all-or-nothing" attitude among gay partners. Feel free to point out where I am wrong though.


Secondly, what benefit would endorsing such lesbian "marriages" have on a society? One could argue that such a lesbian coule could raise a child, through artificial semination or adoption. However this author slaps down that idea as something much less than favorable...




"One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian's sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe's Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child's development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a scoial policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female...



Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.




The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis cant it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction that love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos."





So you'll have to pardon me if I give pause to the notion and I consider it's eventual effects on society rather than succumbing to full support for it out of blind emotionalism to do what I at first may think would help the group in question and society in general. I would rather approach such wholesale change with careful thought.


While your "Ohio lesbian" couple may get along fine, statistics paint a very different picture...





"Lesbians, in contrast, are less promiscuous than male homosexuals but more promiscuous than heterosexual women: One large study found that 42 percent of lesbians had more than ten sexual partners. A substantial percentage of them were strangers. Lesbians share male homosexuals' propensity for drug abuse, psychiatric disorder, and suicide.

The statistics speak for themselves: If homosexuals of either gender are finding satisfaction, why the search for sex with a disproportionately high number of strangers? In view of the evidence, homosexuals will not succeed at establishing exclusive relationships. Promiscuity is a hard habit for anyone to break, straight or homosexual. Promiscuous heterosexuals often fail to learn fidelity; male homosexuals are far more promiscuous than heterosexual males, and therefore far more likely to fail. Lesbians are more promiscuous than heterosexual women. There is little good data on the stability of lesbian relationships, but it is reasonable to speculate that their higher rates of promiscuity and various deep-seated psychological problems would predispose them to long-term relational instability. Existing evidence supports this speculation." Link




I'll let Ann Coulter have the last word on this one...





"Liberals don't care. Their approach is to rip out society's foundations without asking if they serve any purpose. Why do we have immigration laws? What's with these borders? Why do we have the institution of marriage, anyway? What do we need standardized tests for? Hey, I like Keith Richards -- why not make heroin legal? Let's take a sledgehammer to all these load-bearing walls and just see what happens!"














18 comments:

Theological Discourse said...

GS straw man about how JD is cherry picking in 5....4....3...

A. Vanstone said...

You wring your hands, crying "what about society as I see it?!" and quote people asking what good a same-sex family can be to the state?

Are you going after the divorced and one-parent households next? There's not a male and female in those situation.

Also, the photo is not a photo of the 25 people. I don't know if this is your laziness or an attempt to deceive.

Ross said...

I share your concerns that the legalisation of same sex marriage will open up a Pandora's box of other people who want to redefine marriage to reflect their particular tastes.

This story reminds me of a group in Melbourne that I think might have been called the Rainbow Alliance who were campaigning to protest against the Roman Catholic church's teaching against homosexuality. Inviting TV news crews along, they'd go to mass at Melbourne's St Patrick's Cathedral wearing rainbow sashes, knowing full well that they would not be allowed to receive the Eucharist.

You might also be interested in what happened to an Australian Christian leader who got himself in trouble over the weekend with a Twitter posting. Here's the story:

http://tinyurl.com/3gupyfg

and

http://tinyurl.com/3zxqyus

JD Curtis said...

You wring your hands, crying "what about society as I see it?!"

No. I actually look at society as it has existed up until now.

Are you going after the divorced and one-parent households next?

And how would I "go after" them? By citing households of less than 2 parents where a male and female are present, you actually support my argument in that you point out that they are not optimal.

the photo is not a photo of the 25 people

It's from Gay Pride Day in NYC in 2010. I didnt find one of the 25.

GentleSkeptic said...

Are you aware of any coordinated effort whatsoever amongst the gay community to uncouple those who advocate multiple partners with the minority that are more monogamous?

And, in JD's alternate math universe, 46% of gay MEN in ONE city is suddenly a majority, the remainder of gay people in the nation a minority. (And just to be clear, the promiscuous don't advocate multiple partners so much as they just sleep with them.)

One could argue that such a lesbian coule [sic] could raise a child, through artificial semination or adoption. However this author slaps down that idea as something much less than favorable...

I'll see your conservative right-wing Free Republic essay and raise you one conservative Christian essay and one MSM coverage of a long-term empirical study.

One large study found that 42 percent of lesbians had more than ten sexual partners.

Whoa! More than TEN? In a lifetime? All at once? Who cares… disgusting. Although one wonders how the self-reported numbers from lesbians 33 years ago would stack up against the self-reported numbers from straight men today

And, lest we all forget, all of these misleading numbers emerged from a context in which gay people were actively discriminated against and denied the stability of marriage. The miracle is that any stable relationships emerged. And yet they did, and do. I guess we should just continue to punish the stable for the crimes of the promiscuous, and base our treatment of individuals on our perception of the group.

But then—not to ad hominem or anything—what can you expect from birthers?

Justin Vacula said...

I share your concerns that the legalisation of same sex marriage will open up a Pandora's box of other people who want to redefine marriage to reflect their particular tastes.

Slippery Slope Fallacy

Justin Vacula said...

JD, are you still doubting that Obama was born in the US now?

...and are you seriously endorsing Ray Comfort's blog?

A. Vanstone said...

It makes a dangerous precedent when you argue that the state and society must be more important than the individual. In case you haven't noticed, that is what you are doing.

By citing households of less than 2 parents where a male and female are present, you actually support my argument in that you point out that they are not optimal.

No. I'm taking your argument to its conclusion. I don't believe a male and a female are automatically better parents than a same-sex couple. That's your argument.
It looks to me like the only reason you are obsessed with homosexuals is narrow-minded intolerance. I notice you are not writing the same amount of anti-single mother posts. Or do you want children removed from single-parent households too?

Would you support a family with four mothers and a father if you truly do believe "it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes"?
No, of course you wouldn't.

JD Curtis said...

I don't believe a male and a female are automatically better parents than a same-sex couple. That's your argument

It is? I would actually say that on net balance, male and female couples are better for raising children than same-sex couples and there is data to support that.

are you still doubting that Obama was born in the US now?

Requires a seperate thread.

Would you support a family with four mothers and a father if you truly do believe "it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes"?

Irrelevant. This has nothing to do with the discussion unless you would like to show that 4 female-1 male unions are anywhere near as common as heterosexual 1 man-1 woman ones have been throughout history.

Slippery Slope Fallacy

I believe there were about 3 main points raised on the Failure to Support Gay Marriage thread concerning the effects of gay marraige in Massachusetts and you didnt offer a single counter-argument against them.

Might you now?

in JD's alternate math universe, 46% of gay MEN in ONE city is suddenly a majority, the remainder of gay people in the nation a minority

"A 2010 study from England entitled, "Gay Monogamy: I Love You But I Can't Have Sex With Only You", found that none of the gay couples in the study defined monogamy as sexual exclusivity. In fact, they all engaged in sex with outside partners, even though they professed to be in a monogamous relationship" Link

"The Center for Research on Gender and Sexuality, in its spring 2010 newsletter, summarized the English study, explaining that sex with outside partners is the “monogamous” norm for gay couples.

“All participants perceived fidelity as emotional monogamy. Thus, forming an emotional bond with an outside partner constituted cheating.” Sexual encounters with others didn’t count as “cheating” as long as it was “compartmentaliz[ed], which they defined as the process of separating sex from emotion and was key to most participants’ ability to manage sex outside the relationship.” Link

"The truth is that the gay experience, dressed in the language of heterosexual normalcy, bears little resemblance to traditional marriage relationships. For some researchers, that’s exactly the point. They believe that gay relationships herald a long-overdue deconstruction of the meaning of “marriage,” for gays and straights alike, away from the notion of sexual exclusivity and towards emotional bonding and “open” sexual coupling, or tripling, or whatever." Link

JD Curtis said...

And, lest we all forget, all of these misleading numbers emerged from a context in which gay people were actively discriminated against and denied the stability of marriage

The above quotes were found quite quickly. Might you cite one to show that same-sex couples are quite monogamous?

This is from the last article that I linked to in my above entry by those radical, right-wing kooks over at Psychology Today...

"I've wanted to write an article on this topic ever since I began working with a gay male couple who told me that they were monogamous. After several months, however, they informed me they had had a three-way. When I asked if they had changed from monogamy, they said, "No."

Theological Discourse said...


And, in JD's alternate math universe, 46% of gay MEN in ONE city is suddenly a majority, the remainder of gay people in the nation a minority. (And just to be clear, the promiscuous don't advocate multiple partners so much as they just sleep with them.)

Right to it I see, you wasted no time at all. YOUR FIRST POST is accusing JD of cherry picking, something he clearly is not doing.

GentleSkeptic said...

I would actually say that on net balance, male and female couples are better for raising children than same-sex couples and there is data to support that.

Citation please. I actually linked to coverage of a long-term study that suggests the opposite. ("…they were surprised to discover that children in lesbian homes scored higher than kids in straight families on some psychological measures of self-esteem and confidence, did better academically and were less likely to have behavioral problems, such as rule-breaking and aggression.")

This is from the last article that I linked to in my above entry by those radical, right-wing kooks over at Psychology Today...

Cool. So is all of the following:

But too many happy and successful relationships, both gay and straight, have open contracts around sex. Meanwhile, some monogamous couples struggle and disintegrate for not being willing to open up their relationships at all.

It's not appropriate to judge couples for behavior that society does not believe to be "proper" for any relationship.


This debate is not about polygamy-which involves including another person permanently-but about episodic experiences. It's about openness, honesty and commitment to the contract that two people make. Heterosexuals have a lot to learn from gay couples about this.



"Commitment to the contract that two people make." kind of sounds like… marriage.

So, JD: do you agree with the conclusions of the article that you cited and linked to approvingly? The conclusions under the header "Here are 10 things gay couples can teach other couples about sexual monogamy versus non-monogamy"? in the article from Psychology Today?

Because if you don't, I'd call that a quote-mine.

Might you cite one [study] to show that same-sex couples are quite monogamous?

No, I might not, because—JD, you might want to sit down for this one—Monogamy is not a requirement for marriage in America. No one is asked by the state for proof of their monogamy before they are given a marriage license. If they wish to be married in a church, the priest or pastor may wish to assess the couple's stability and commitment, and this may include an inquiry about monogamy. But the state has no such condition, and folks get married at the courthouse all the time. Without having to prove to you or anyone else that they are monogamous.

Again: you'd withhold marriage from monogamous gay couples (are rare as you may think they are) because other gay couples can't be trusted not to whore around. How is this substantively different in principle from rounding up all Japanese (and withholding their right to free movement and association) because some Japanese are thought to be spying on America? Both are a punitive stance toward individuals based on broad perceptions of a group.

JD, let me ask this as simply and straightforwardly as I can.

Is it your desire to withhold marriage from gay people because they are gay, or to withhold marriage from promiscuous people because they are promiscuous?

Which is it?

Bullhorn Twotails said...

"......commerate out Saviour's..."??????

3 typos in 3 words? Unlikely.

Your poor command of English is a given: You really do think 'commemorate' is spelt 'commerate', don't you? If it had been a typo, you'd have corrected it, long since.

Alright 'out', as in 'our', typo.

But why the 'u' in Saviour??

You're not English, are you?

As for your Saviour's resurrection, if it gives you a erection, fine & dandy. As for the rest of us, we don't give a flying fuck for your idiotic, blasphemous beliefs....

You cock-sucking maggot, you!

JD Curtis said...

But why the 'u' in Saviour??

It's called dictionary.com Copernicus..

I'll leave commerate up now that I know it bothers you Grammer Nazi.

GentleSkeptic said...

LOL: "Grammer [sic] Nazi"! Perfect! That HAD to be intentional. Besides, grammar isn't at issue here, it's spellchecking. Which actually makes it even funnier.

Good one, JD.

Not answering the hard questions, though, huh? like why promiscuous straight people can marry but promiscuous gays can't?

JD Curtis said...

Promiscuous couples, whether they be straight or gay, make a sham out of the institution of marraige as commonly understood for centuries here in the west.

GentleSkeptic said...

Promiscuous couples, whether they be straight or gay, make a sham out of the institution of marraige as commonly understood for centuries here in the west.

JD's opinion. Noted.

Now: argument from tradition aside, why should one of these "shams" be legally recognized and the other not?

Bullhorn Twotails said...

Typically JD, you respond with a non-sequitur. Par for the course for your ilk. What in God's name does 'Dictionary.com' have to do your anglicized spelling of the word?

As for my losing sleep over your poor writing skills, what makes you think that grousing, pretentious goofballs like you would even figure on the fringes of anyone's awareness, except as butts of ridicule?

Again, grudgingly, I commmend you for not censoring my 'inflammatory' words....

If you're ever going to be taken seriously, at the very least you're gonna have to open up your blog to dissenting opinions that may lay yours to waste.

Could it be that you're finally realizing that your self-indulgent rants get you nowhere?

If you stopped 'straining at gnats' (bet you don't know where that comes from...), even your English might improve.....