Where's the birth certificate

Free and Strong America

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Comparing Gay and Traditional Marriage





In today's article by Glenn Stanton, we are reminded of the fundamental differences between gay and traditional marriage that no amount of demonization by leftists is ever going to change. Apparently, one of the more popular tactics favored by those who would reengineer society is to compare old segregation laws that prevented whites and blacks from marrying to the current struggle to redefine marriage as anything other than between a man and a woman...







"Segregation was a profound social evil. Marriage as an exclusive heterosexual union is a necessary social good. It is why all cultures since earliest days, regardless of religion, law, or culture, have marriage as only between men and women.

Loving v. Virginia struck down a legal regime, peculiar to certain parts of the nation that was wholly racist at its core. As the court observed, the Virginia law was about "the absolute prohibition of a 'white person' marrying other than another 'white person.'" It was about nothing more than the racial purity of whites and all the ugliness that implies. If the Loving analogy is exact, we would have to conclude that our current laws on marriage as a male/female union stem from some effort to keep others in their place. Study the anthropological origins of marriage for as long as you want and you will find nothing of the sort.

As David Blankenhorn sagely pointed out in his book, "The Future of Marriage," some Southern racists redefined marriage to make it something it was never supposed to be about -- racial purity -- when race is not any part of marriage. It was about making marriage do something it was never intended to do for the sake of their own narrow social ideals. Likewise, same-sex marriage advocates today are drafting marriage into their own narrow social cause, as a way to elevate the social standing of homosexuality. Like keeping the races apart then, marriage has no place in this special-interest-based re-engineering...

..on the note of mothers and fathers, it is a very different thing for a child to say "I have a white father and black mother" than "I have two moms." There is scant research indicating that interracial parenting is developmentally harmful to children, but literally hundreds -- if not thousands -- of strong published studies showing how negatively children are hindered physically, emotionally, educationally and socially when they are denied being raised by their own mother and father, which is exactly what every same-sex home does by definition."






I'm starting to realize that no amount of logical argumentation will ever persuade an ardent supporter of gay marraige that they are, like the white supremacists of the 1960's, attempting to remake the idea of marriage into "their own narrow social cause". It reminds me of a reporter who visited a madrassa a few years ago in Pakistan. When the reporter spoke to a young boy about Osama Bin Laden, the boy wouldn't hear a single bad word spoken against Bin Laden. When the reporter tried to point out that many Muslims were murdered in the Twin Towers tragedy on 9/11, the boy would simply shout Osama! each time the reporter tried to persuade him, so ingrained was the kid's worldview.

Kelly Boggs sheds some further light on the differences between the two types of "marriage".








"A study by University of Vermont researchers showed that only half of male couples who had entered into civil unions in 2000-2001 believed monogamy was important."

.. The EdgeBoston.com website, popular among homosexuals in Massachusetts, commented on the findings with its editor in chief writing, "Some may put this into the category of 'studies that confirm the painfully obvious.'" The story ran under the headline "Surprise! Lots of Gay Marriages Are 'Open."






I wonder why these points are never trotted out by those who support gay marriage and instead there is the prejudiced notion that any reservations one might have to gay marriage are rooted in bigotry and hate. I suppose that its because it's much easier to demonize an opponent for temporary political gain than engage in meaningful dialogue.

14 comments:

GentleSkeptic said...

"meaningful dialogue" lol

oh THAT's what that was.

The Maryland Crustacean said...

"I suppose that its because it's much easier to demonize an opponent for temporary political gain than engage in meaningful dialogue."

And this has been the tactic of the left not only with regard to this debate, but in just about any of the issue of the day where they find themselves intellectually if not morally bankrupt. When all else fails, scream real loud and call them names.

Granted, this is a general tendency of sinful humanity, but the shoe happens to fit very nicely on the left these days.

Jquip said...

I understand your personal stake on this, Hoss. But Imma take a different stand than you on this one. *Every* attempt to introduce law into the distinctly *religious* institution of marriage is to try to remake it into a narrow social cause.

Doesn't matter if it's a false creedo (Han shot first) of spoon fed Gaia nonsense or Christianity -- it's a distinctly and discretely religious affair. And so ought be beyond the bounds of the State what with the 1st and -- if you buy the Icorporation Doctrine -- 14th amendments.

The Alpha and Omega of government's involvement is around the property issues involved in a formal and contractual partnership effectuated by whatever kind or nature of witness is present for it. Anything less than that is a depiction of an illegitimate government. Anything more than that is a depiction of an illegitimate government.

JD Curtis said...

I am reminded of VD stating in his article the other day that "in some states, such as Washington, all marriage-related information was kept at the county level until 1968".

If marraige is a profundly religious institution, then isnt that all the more evident that it should be between a man and a woman?

It seems that it will only be a matter of time before one of the most ardent supporters of gay marraige is also focusing it's attention on legalizing marriage for multiple partners.

"The ACLU believes that criminal and civil laws prohibiting or penalizing the practice of plural marriage violate constitutional protections . . . ." 1992 Policy Guide of the ACLU, Policy #91, p. 175.

JD Curtis said...

"
The outlook for polygamy hasn’t been this good since Abraham took Keturah as his third wife.

Plural marriage remains illegal, but it’s undergoing an image upgrade as a result of television shows like HBO’s “Big Love” and TLC’s “Sister Wives.” More significantly, it’s getting a legal boost from a strange bedfellow: the success of same-sex marriage.

Gay-rights advocates cringe whenever the connection is made between same-sex and plural marriage, but more than a few legal analysts say the recent gains posted by gay marriage in the courts and state legislatures cannot help but bolster the case for legalized polygamy." Link

Can Man-Horse marriage be far behind?

GentleSkeptic said...

Oh, JD. like all slippery-slope arguers, you put advocates for one well-articulated thing in the position of defending other non-following things that they aren't asking for. You're putting demands in their mouths and strawmanning. It's painfully typical.

I couldn't be more neutral about polygamy, or man-horse marriage, for that matter. Seems gross, but I'm not going to lobby for or against it. I'll leave that to the polygamists and horse-fuckers—and you—to sort out.

JD Curtis said...

That they arent asking for it is irrelevant.

Once the line is erased, by what standard can we then say, 'up to here, but no further'? What would stop it?

Arielle said...

As it happens, I'm also largely neutral on the subject of gay 'marriage,' though probably not for the same reason as GS. Marriage is, and will always be, the union of a man and a woman. Governments didn't make marriage what it is, God did, and governments can't make it anything else - when they try they are merely posturing and usurping a power that is not theirs and that never could be. Marriage is a spiritual union, intended to foreshadow the union of Christ and the church, and it doesn't matter what kind of obfuscation happens, it will always be exactly that. If homosexuals are granted legally sanctioned, contractual alliances, it won't make it marriage any more than the government granting the same legally sanctioned, contractual alliance to a man and a woman is what makes their union a marriage.

The fact that the term 'common-law' marriage even exists will show that marriage is much more than legality.

Theological Discourse said...


I couldn't be more neutral about polygamy, or man-horse marriage, for that matter. Seems gross, but I'm not going to lobby for or against it. I'll leave that to the polygamists and horse-fuckers—and you—to sort out.

Why are you neutral for it? don't they have rights as well? why are you neutral when it comes to these peoples 'rights' and actively supporting the 'rights' of gays when it comes to marriage? Why are you picking and choosing to support who has the 'right' to marry? if there is a 'right' to marry then why do only gays and heteros get that 'right' and nobody else? The illogical nonsense you stupid lefty atheists continually find yourselves in is absolutely hilarious.

Jquip said...

"If marraige is a profundly religious institution, then isnt that all the more evident that it should be between a man and a woman?"

Sure, to me. But lore about sheepin' boots has been around longer than Lesbian Pastors. (Pastorettes? Pastiches? Not really sure what honorific here.) The question isn't what's proper and whether men will screw the pooch on the deal. It is whether we ought be bringing the State to bear in such matters, whether for or against.

Problem is that the only tool the State possesses is violence. And when all you have is a hammer... Not that most folks have this in mind here but it is the case nonetheless. So rather than abstract footwork lets just ask the question of both sides interested in the State bringing its one and only tool to the table in support of their position:

1. Can you eradicate sin through applied violence?

2. Why is the best expression of the love between Bruce and Bruce applying violence to the public?

Because if violence has no part to play in your answer the State doesn't either.

GentleSkeptic said...

TD: Arielle has professed neutrality about same-sex marriage. Perhaps you can attack her for cherry-picking her causes as well.

Jquip: Thumbs up for Pastorettes and Pastiches.

Theological Discourse said...


TD: Arielle has professed neutrality about same-sex marriage. Perhaps you can attack her for cherry-picking her causes as well.

Neutrality about same sex marriages and supporting same sex marriages while being neutral to all other types aren't the same thing moron. You're such an illogical moron GS. I also expect you to answer the questions moron, just like how you expect everyone else to answer yours. You're such a hypocritical moron.

GentleSkeptic said...

And YOU are such a gentle, sweet and persuasive Christian! OH I wish I could hug you!

His Lordship The Gun-Toting Atheist said...

Honestly, I don't understand why anyone would want to get married.

The legal obligations are too much of a deterrent. (Having to split assets 50/50 and paying that stupid alimony crap in the event of a divorce come to mind). By being unmarried, you remain free of government interference in your own damn love life and you can walk away (or change the locks) and move on to the next younger, hotter chick, without lawyers, worries or drama.

If gay people want to lock themselves into contracts and have the government tell them what they can and cannot do, let them be as miserable as the rest of you married people.

I any case, do I care about the issue of gay marriage?

That is the wrong question. I don't care much for any kind of marriage at all and to me is is hilarious that conservatives and liberals are having such a pointless debate.

Celibacy = Freedom.