McCracken: Gays won't save the UMC

Kudos to Sky McCracken over at The United Methodist Reporter for bringing some clarity to the issue of Christians considering the compromise of God's word in the name of feel-goody emotionalism. You can check out the entire article at your leisure, I'll just highlight the first point he wished to make for our purposes here...

"1. Changing the stance on homosexuality in the United Methodist Church will not stop the loss of membership in the denomination.

It’s at best a red herring and at worst a lie to espouse otherwise. The Southern Baptist Church continues to lose membership; they are in their fifth year of decline, and they have a very decisive, very clear statement on their opposition to homosexuality.

On the other side of the issue, the Episcopal Church also has a very decisive and clear statement on homosexuality, where they bless and celebrate same-sex unions as they do male-female marriages, even though doing so separated them from the Anglican Communion. Did it help them gain members? Their membership is now lower than it was in 1939.

The loss of membership in both denominations, as well as in the UMC, can reasonably point to one reason: failure to make disciples. We can blame society, we can blame the president and Congress, we can even blame MTV. But we can’t blame our stances on homosexuality.

The fact that I hold an orthodox view on this issue and agree with my denomination’s stance doesn’t let me off the hook for anything – that has nothing to do with a failure to make disciples in the name of Jesus Christ. As Dallas Willard reminds us, we are more often guilty of the Great Omission: once we baptize folks, and/or they have been converted to follow Christ, we seem to forget the rest: “teaching them to do everything that [Jesus] commanded you.” That’s discipleship. We have failed at discipleship, and have for several generations."

Perhaps McCracken is right and the chickens are indeed coming home to roost concerning this particular matter via failure of imparting discipleship. Already, several prominent ministers in Minnesota are letting it be known that they will not be helping out in the campaign against legalizing homogamy in that state. Perhaps the Church is undergoing a down-sizing at this moment in which there will hopefully be a meaner, leaner version of adherents in the years to come.

Dexter: How Gay Divorce Cheapens Traditional Marriage

In Penna Dexter's (above, right) latest article, she provides her reasoning as to why the divorce rate among married gays cheapens the institution on traditional marriage as it has been understood for centuries...

"How much divorce is there in the same-sex "marriage" world? It turns out there's a lot.

The United States' history with same-sex "marriage" is short, but Scandinavian countries have been at this much longer. A Stockholm University professor of demography found that in Sweden and Norway male same-sex "marriages" are 50 percent more likely to end in divorce than heterosexual marriages.

In Sweden, the divorce rate for female couples is twice that of male couples. And in Norway, lesbian "married" couples are 167 percent more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples.

Despite the many efforts to usher in civil unions and same-sex "marriage" in the United States, when laws are changed, the number of couples registering their partnerships is surprisingly low.

Charles Cooke of National Review wrote that since 1997, when Hawaii was the first state to allow registration of same-sex partnerships, only about one in five self-identified same-sex couples have taken advantage of the various ways states register such couples so they can receive benefits. Same-sex "marriage" actually is declining in popularity in the Netherlands."

In the headlong rush to dismantle one of the great pillars upon which Western civilization is built around in the name of such abstract terms as 'tolerance' and 'inclusion' never once are the predictable societal effects taken into account.

Before any gay apologists start popping off about a 50 percent divorce rate among heterosexual marriages, I would suggest that they actually research the matter first. It turns out that in many surveys, 2nd and 3rd marriages that end with divorce are often lumped in with first marriages and the actual divorce rate of first marriages may be as low as 20 percent.

EDIT: And just how is that technique of 'jamming' working out for the Gay Left? It appears that the logical firstfruits of stigmatizing principled, civil disagreement (or any disgreement for that matter) with the gay agenda as 'bigoted', 'intolerant' or 'homophobic' is now coming to fruition.

Forces of Hatred Defeated In North Carolina

 

The forces of bigotry were turned back at the polls yesterday as citizens of North Carolina voted to amend their state constitution  to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.  The above map indicates the counties that voted for adding the language to the constitution (in green) and against it (in red).  The two western counties in red barely passed with 51% to 49% votes.  It would seem that the strategy of stealing signs from traditional marriage supporters backfired and the citizens then did the right thing by approving this measure. One thing not mentioned by the opponents of trditional marriage was the specific language to be included in the constitutional amendment...

"With the passage of this amendment, a new Section 6 was added to Article 14 of the North Carolina Constitution, which reads as follows: “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.”

Of course, to mention that would begin to take the only arguments the Left had going for them (emotion based arguments) off the table and the last thing the Pink Hand desires in these matters is rational discussion on the matter.   



PFOX Highlights Gay Inc.'s Antagonism Towards Former Homosexuals‏

Three cheers for Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays for fighting for the freedom of ex-gays to have their voices heard. While certain school districts simply lap up whatever propaganda is offered up by the Pink Hand such as The Day of Silence, PFOX offers an alternative view by encouraging students to print and distribute flyers that promote the organization's mission and resources to offer a balanced view on this chosen, alternative lifestyle...

"It lets people know that PFOX can offer resources for parents and students as well as ex-”gay” speakers for schools or clubs, books for libraries and other information.

“Every year thousands of people with unwanted same-sex attractions make the personal decision to leave a gay identity through non-judgmental environments or their own initiative. Their decision is one only they can make. However, there are those in society who refuse to respect an individual’s right to self-determination,” the brochure explains. “Consequently, formerly gay men and women are discriminated against simply because they dare to exist. Ex-gays and their supporters are denied equal access and support, forcing them to remain silent for fear of negative reactions and disapproval.”

The brochure documents that “there are no replicated scientific studies to support hat a person can be born ‘gay.’ No ‘gay gene’ or gay center of the brain has been found. No medical test exists to determine if a person is homosexual. Sexual orientation is based on feelings and is a matter of self-affirmation and public declaration. Some teens are labeled ‘gay’ or other names even though they do not have same-sex attractions. Appearance is not a reliable means to know what another person feels. No one should be labeled based on the perception of others. Name calling is wrong because the victim can begin to believe what others tell them about themselves, which may be completely false labeling and cause gender confusion.”" (emphasis mine)

Outstanding PFOX! May others learn by your example and refused to be silenced when doing the right thing might not be popular thing to do. The Parent Teachers Association has already shown themselves to be completely against the freedom of expression in classrooms on this subject. Oh, that students might have the liberty to hear both sides of the subject and then decide for themselves.

Tactics of Gay Left Becoming Increasingly Creepy‏

It seems that the newest tactic adopted by radical, gay activist organization GLAAD is taken straight from the Saul Alinsky handbook as beautifully laid out by Mike Adams...

"The Gay and Lesbian Alliance against Defamation (GLAAD) Commentator Accountability Project came out to the media earlier this month. As you know, this project aims to put “critical information” about “anti-gay interviewees” into the hands of “newsrooms, editors, hosts and reporters” who “don’t often have the time to dig into the histories of a commentator.” In other words, it is a branch of the Gaystapo using Nazi tactics to ban those who disagree with them from appearing in the media. I call it pink-listing. This is not to be confused with pink-lisping, which refers to the tendency of homosexuals to develop speech impediments as soon as they come out of the closet.

The GLAAD project seeks to pink-list those “comparing LGBT people to Nazi Germany, predicting that equal treatment of LGBT people will lead to the total collapse of society, and even making accusations of satanic influence.”"

Don't have time between denigrating Western values and advancing leftist policies to do research on someone you're interviewing? Not to worry, we've done all the work for you! We'll tell you how to think and reinforce any stereotypes you might have about people who aren't like-minded. Sheesh! This is getting downright totalitarian-like creepy.

What is Wayne Besen afraid of?

Apparently, media darling and poster child for radical, gay activism, Wayne Besen has a problem with the truth over at Truth Wins Out.org. Last night, he and I got into an interesting discussion over at his blog on the site and I must say, I was shocked at the level of candor exhibited by Besen. During the course of the discussion, I asked the following...

"Question…

Was homosexuality depathologized by the APA in 1973 through any sort of groundbreaking ‘research’ or was it through pressure, threats and intimidation brought about via radical gay activism? If it’s the former, exactly what study changed everyone’s mind in the psychological community?

I’d really like an answer here.
Comment by JD Curtis — February 12, 2012 @ 9:25 pm

JD:
Get with the times. Chambers latest stat is .1%.
http://www.truthwinsout.org/pressreleases/2012/02/21908/
The activists put pressure on the APA to review the research. Once that occurred it was easy to see that homosexuality was not an illness.

You have everything ass backwards.

And, yes, they do pray away the gay. You really don’t know a thing about this topic, do you?
Comment by Wayne Besen — February 12, 2012 @ 9:35 pm

Are you really going to make me listen to over 2 hours of discussion to see the context of the relevant statement by Chambers? I’ll be more specific. Does Chambers imply this in a manner that a recovering alcoholics are exactly 1 weekend-bender away from being an alcoholic again? (If you know the point in the interview where the quote occurs, please tell me and I’ll check it out)

The activists put pressure on the APA to review the research

Thank you for your honesty here. I’m not aware of a specific study.

Once that occurred it was easy to see that homosexuality was not an illness

Let me get this straight. Once gay activists put, quote ‘pressure’ on the psychologists, the truth then became clear? I’m not trying to define your position for you here, so a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ would be appreciated.
Comment by JD Curtis — February 12, 2012 @ 9:47 pm"

As the evening wore on, it became apparent that not only was Mr Besen not going to answer my direct question to him, but that he had made a slip-up. The last thing anyone over at Truth Wins Out wants to hear about is the truth, and such an admission by Besen, as refreshingly honest as it was, only served to buttress my earlier point that homosexuality was depathologized "through pressure, threats and intimidation brought about via radical gay activism" rather than by any actual "research". Before turning in for the night, I copied and pasted this exchange between Wayne and I for safekeeping and sure enough, the particular exchange had been scrubbed from that discussion thread by morning.

So anytime somebody mentions the site Truth Wins Out, just refer them to this entry for the actual TRUTH. They cannot win their arguments with facts and instead they resort to censorship.

PS. Earlier today I attempted to give Wayne an opportunity to explain why he deleted the above exchange, but when I asked him why he did so over on his blog, my question was quickly deleted by the resident Thought Police.

The Blunt Truth Re: The Removal of Homosexuality from the list of Diagnostic and Statistical Mental Disorders by the APA

The sad fact of the matter is that homosexuality was depathologized by the American Psychological Association in 1973 NOT through the results of any sort of research or groundbreaking experiments, but through pressure, intimidation and threats levied at the group by radical gay activists. If anyone is in doubt about the preceding sentence, then they are welcome to cite the specific study (or studies) at the time that the APA based their decision on. I can save you the trouble of looking though, because such studies/experiments simply do not exist. Parents and Friends of ExGays and Gays (pfox.org) has a highly informative and detailed article about those on the front lines of such discussions at the time and I encourage everyone to check it out if they get the chance.

I would like to thank Ryan Sorba for putting together a great entry on the subject. Check it out at his blog if you get the chance. Here's a brief exerpt to whet your appetite...

"Despite being discredited in April of 1993 by the official journal of the American Psychological Association, American Psychologist, ('Life long hard-left political activist, psychologist and UCLA professor Evelyn') Hooker’s is the only study discussed in the APA’s 2003 amicus brief in Lawrence v. Texas, the United State Supreme court case which suspended the power of states to enforce anti-sodomy laws. Even today, more than fifty years after its publication, and fifteen years after its being exposed as contrived, her study is the only paper referenced in detail on the main website of the American Psychological Association in its discussion of “Gay” and “Lesbian” issues, as it attempts to make the case that there is no evidence for an association between Same-Sex Attraction Disorder (SSAD), Adult Same-Sex Intercourse (ASSI), and psychopathology.

The controversial claims of Hooker garnered her almost instant recognition within homosexualist circles, and in the wake of the Stonewall riots in 1969, as politics began to trump science, militant activists increasingly relied on Hooker’s study to support their demands that the APA remove homosexuality from the DSM."

It has been said that in the upcoming years, the church will increasingly become leaner and moved more towards the periphery of society as it continues to speak truth to power, no matter how inconvenient said truth is to those who don't wish to hear it. The Gay Left is doing a masterful job in arguing their position from a historical standpoint by comparing the advancement of the extremist homosexual agenda with the civil rights struggles of the 1960's when the comparison couldn't be any more faulty if they tried. All such activists need are people to rally around their cause utilizing emotional rather than factual arguments and they can experience success. Given that the majority of leftist talking points are based on emotion rather than FACTS, such activists already have a built-in audience of uncritically thinking lemmings to peddle their nonsense to and convince that they are somehow advancing 'rights' when nothing could be further from the truth.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that Mike Goeke hit one outta the park with his latest entry over at Baptist Press as to how the church should consider and proceed on the topic of homosexuality. Link

Well thought out defense of traditional marriage from Catholic World Report

While browsing the internet today, I came across a well put together piece at The Catholic World Report by Mark Brumley. Among the arguments concerning marriage that I encounter on the World Wide Web are from more Libertarian friends who seem to think that 'government should get out of the marriage business altogether.' I will list some of the better points raised by Brumley (IMO) below...

"Those libertarians and conservatives who argue in favor of so-called privatization of marriage do not adequately consider a key point regarding it: the public interest in government encouraging couples who engage in procreative kinds of acts publically and legally to commit themselves exclusively and permanently to one another and, by implication, to their offspring, should they have any. The legal institution of marriage encourages such commitment between sexually-active heterosexual couples.

Why does government have a stake in this? Because it has a stake in encouraging the parents to provide a stable, loving, committed relationship as the morally best environment for raising children. Government has a stake in encouraging couples together to raise their children and to provide examples for their children of parental relationship. Children, after all, are the future of the state. They provide the foundation for society’s future success or failure, so government has an interest in encourage certain behaviors in relation to children and in discouraging others."

The entire article is a good read and Brumley gets more into the child-rearing aspect further on in it. One of the most important first steps in taking on Leftist bigots who enjoy stifling rational discussion through feel-goody, appeal-to-emotional rhetoric is to immediately take emotional arguments off the table and get down to verifiable, empirical evidence. Once that occurs the anti-free speecher is then diminished to the poorly informed, mindless lemming that they are. That doesn't necssarily mean that they are bad people, just that they swallowed hook-line-and-sinker a poorly thought out position based on emotionalism rather than actually thinking the issue through to it's logical conclusion.

Demolishing the idea that 'there's no such thing as an ex gay'

"NPR should have tried to find individuals that were not 'ex-gay for pay.' Truth Wins Out always challenges journalists to find such people and they come up empty handed," he wrote on his group's website. "This speaks to the fact that there is no genuine 'ex-gay' movement, just a high-dollar, politically motivated marketing campaign to create the appearance that such people exist in large numbers." Wayne Besen, Link

That ex gays abound is an undeniable fact. I would only agree with the idea that there are no 'ex gays' if it is meant in the context that nobody is actually 'cured' of alcoholism. A condition as such still might require active participation on the part of the recovering alcoholic to avoid ruining their life through alcohol. Likewise, homosexuality can be viewed as a problem that is quite complex for the person dealing with unwanted same-sex attraction that can be attributed to a wide variety of factors. However, if Mr Besen or anyone else would like to know if there really are people who have left the homosexual lifestyle behind and are glad they did so, perhaps they might want to speak with such courageous people as...

ex homosexual Michael Glatze

ex homosexual Joe Dallas

former lesbian Jeanette Howard

former lesbian Luanna Hansberger

former lesbian Sandra Aslesen

former homosexual Stephen Bennett

former lesbian Linda Jernigan"

former lesbian Christine Sneeringer

former lesbian Charlene E. Cothran

ex homosexual Phillip Tucker

ex homosexual Nathanael Flock

ex homosexual Richard Weller

ex homosexual Tim Wilkins

former lesbian Melissa Fryear

former lesbian Melinda Selmys

former lesbian Jackie Clune

former lesbian Linda Wall

former lesbian Abigail Meadows

former lesbian Cindy Hinsch

ex homosexual James Hartline

former lesbian Janet Jenkins

former lesbian Teresa Britton

ex homosexual Greg Quinlan

former lesbian Shereka Ford

former lesbian Janet Boynes

former transexual Walt Heyer

former homosexual Stephen Black

former lesbian Yvette Schneider

former lesbian Kristin (Johnson) Tremba

former homosexual James Wimbush

former lesbian Melanie Spinks

former homosexual Deacon Remnant

former homosexual DL Foster

former homosexual Matt Moore

Former homosexual Christopher Doyle

former homosexual Mike Davidson

former lesbian Akila Brayboy

Former homosexual Robert Breaud

And on and on the list goes. These names were accumulated with just a perfunctory seach, could you imagine if one sat down and really analyzed the issue for a considerable length of time? I hope we can finally rid ourselves, once and for all, of the idea that there 'are no ex gays' and diminish the amount of hateful bigotry leveled against former homosexuals who are brave enough to speak the truth. The above list should provide a starting point for anyone truly interested in finding some that actually exist.

Virginia says Nein! to Gay Adoption uber alles

Its only fitting on a day that Rep. Allen West (R-FL) makes note that Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels (above) would be 'very proud of the Democrat Party, because they have an incredible propaganda machine', that a Virginia State Board of Social Services would stand up to the bullying tactics commonly utilized by the Gay Left.

"The Virginia State Board of Social Services voted against proposed regulations Wednesday that would force faith-based adoption and foster agencies to act against their religious beliefs and provide adoption services to gay and lesbian couples.

The decision angered homosexual activists who submitted 2,500 comments in April supporting the regulations. The vote also encouraged officials who believe faith-based adoption groups should have the religious liberty to follow their convictions.

In a 5 to 1 vote, the Social Services board decided not to add extended discrimination protections to final regulations set to begin May 2012. The extended protection would have banned selective service based on “sexual orientation, gender, age, religion and political beliefs disability and family status.”

Wednesday's vote was the second time the board rejected the extended discrimination clause. It was first voted down in April by the same margin.

Currently, Virginia law does not allow unmarried couples to adopt nor does it recognize gay marriage. As a result, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli advised the board in an April memo that it “lacks the authority to adopt this proposed language.”"

Hurrah! for speaking up for decency and common sense. Apparently the agitators activists' tactic to make them Vote 'Till They Get It Right was ineffective in this case.

Poor Gov. Scott Walker (R) of Wisconsin is another case though. It seems that the effort to recall him as governor after the backlash he experienced while battling public workers unions is going on full tilt. Recall petitions would be considered valid even if they are signed by 'Adolph Hitler' or 'Mickey Mouse' so long as they are properly dated and have an Wisconsin address.

EDIT: In his latest entry titled Who hates Rick Santorum?, Molotov Mitchell smacks down the behavior of one of, if not THE biggest gay bullies on the planet, Dan Savage. Its definately worth watching. Link

The Pink Swastika inspires hate crime act

Really. Read it for yourself...

"A Christian school in Illinois reported its glass entry door being smashed by bricks with hateful messages on them early Saturday morning.

The vandalism, recorded by Christian Liberty Academy’s security cameras, came on the eve of a banquet being hosted by the academy, a school run by the Church of Christian Liberty in Arlington Heights. The event, planned by Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), was designed to discuss the homosexual activist agenda, and to honor pro-family activist and author of The Pink Swastika, Dr. Scott Lively.

AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera, Church of Christian Liberty Pastor Calvin Lindstrom and the Chicago Independent Media Center received an email from the perpetrators of the attack a few hours after the incident. The email reads, “If this event is not shut down, and the homophobic day trainings do not end, the Christian Liberty Academy will continue to be under constant attack."

...The bricks thrown at the school’s entry door had hateful messages written on them, such as “Shut down Lively” and “Quit the homophobic s---!” Other notes threatened both the school and the church with more violence if they continued to host "homophobic" guests."

Here is the link for the entire, cited article.

Exactly where are to free-thinking, open-minded and allegedly 'inclusive' champions of free speech on this matter? For those of you who are not familiar, The Pink Swastika was a book I examined here and offered up for discussion on my blog and is one off the most viewed pages here of all time at Trees For Lunch. (Click here for the link to The Pink Swastika Part II)

Basically, The Pink Swastika posits that the leadership and membership of the NSDAP skewed highly disproportionate in the percentage of it's homosexual (butch, as opposed to femme) membership.

Lest you dismiss such a charge like this out of hand, this assertion is supported by no less than Walter C. Langer, psychoanalyst for the OSS, (which was the indirect forerunner to today's CIA) and author William L. Shirer, whose impeccable and exhaustive work on the subject of Nazi Germany The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich is the standard to which all other works on the topic are measured and judged.

Rather than attempting to disprove anything contained in the book by Lively utilizing facts, it seems much more important for the Pink Hand (or if you prefer, Gay Inc.) to silence rational discussion through, (dare I say it?) Nazi tactics of intimidation. If anything, this only lends further credence to Lively's propositions as the Gay Gestapo cannot tolerate any dissent from the Happy=Gay, pre-approved party line. It is becoming increasingly obvious that no criticism of the gay lifestyle is allowed whatsoever in the Liberal New World Order.

Gallagher: From whence 'the moral authority of gay men'?

In her most recent column, Maggie Gallagher hits the nail on the head when describing the state of affairs in the ongoing culture war between radical gay activism and mainstream America....

"Moral authority is, of course, in itself a curious phenomenon. Where does it come from? Who has it? How is it made visible in the external and everyday world?

Every human child begins with anxiety: Am I OK? Is what I do good enough? Am I a good person?

The reassurance that mothers and fathers give ultimately passes to some external force in human affairs, one that defines and binds a society together: Moral authority is that influence over the human mind that requires no external backing. We crave it, we seek it, we respond to it. Human beings are made that way.

The moral crisis that the gay rights movement poses for American civilization is ultimately a crisis in moral authority.

The original civil rights movement built upon a Judeo-Christian and biblical foundation, used the power of suffering, with dignity and courage, to call for social respect for African-Americans.

The new civil rights movement takes Christian pity and uses it as a weapon to unmoor the Christian tradition itself of all moral authority in our society in order to accomplish the "transvaluation of all values."

The phrase is Nietzsche's, of course.

"I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity. ... I call it the one immortal blemish of mankind. ... And one calculates time from the dies nefastus on which this fatality arose -- from the first day of Christianity! Why not rather form its last? From today? Revaluation of all values!" he wrote in "The Antichrist."

For Nietzsche, the two great besetting sins of Christianity were its elevation of pity -- the moral authority of the weak -- and chastity; both in his mind were violations of the natural order in which desire and the strength to attain desire were the natural basis of morality. Christianity was "anti-life" because it interfered with the twin goods of strength and desire.

The genius of modern Progressivism is to instead take these two Christian virtues, pity and chastity, and pit them against each other -- to take pity for human suffering and direct it against the restraint of sexual desire..

To the gay rights movement, a strong moral confidence in the goodness of our marriage tradition is in itself the core moral offense, which requires disciplining, punishing, silencing, shunning.

Why? So that legitimate pity for the gay man, and his suffering as a child, can be turned against the moral authority of chastity, for that system of sexual ethics that begins not with our desires but with our responsibility to discipline and elevate them."

Bravo to Gallagher for the willingness to stand up against the Pink Hand and speak truth to power.

Given the economic downturn of recent years, I wonder if hard times really will produce hard men with the absence of decadence and wealth as one author has posited. Perhaps all of the moral posturing of homosexual activism might all go for naught as we may very well have already experienced Peak Gay.

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.