Buy My Book Here

Fox News Ticker

Please check out my new books, "Bullied to Death: Chris Mackney's Kafkaesque Divorce and Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and the World's Last Custody Trial"

Friday, November 28, 2008

Make Gay Marriage a Right...Another Step Toward Socialism

If you think that gay marriage is merely a culture war issue, think about this. The reason that proponents of gay marriage believe that gay marriage is a fundamental right is because without the basic tenets that our country was founded on are violated. The basic tenets are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Proponents of gay marriage believe that not recognizing the gay lifestyle with the monikor of marriage violates a gay person's liberty.

Let's use that same logic and apply it to other rights. Let's start with the "right" to quality and affordable health care. Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. thinks the right to health care is so vital that we should add an amendment specifying as much.

Because our current economic crisis is forcing us to think outside the box, one topic worthy of renewed discussion is health care. What if the Constitution said: "All citizens shall enjoy the right to health care of equal high quality and the Congress shall have the power to implement this article by appropriate legislation?"

Without quality and affordable health care, eventually someone's life is threatened. So, if the absence of gay's right marry violated the right to pursue liberty, then by that logic the absence of quality and affordable health care violates someone's right to life.

Let's take another right: the right to a living wage. Without a living wage, how can someone possibly pursue happiness? As such, in order to guarantee the right to pursue happiness, the government must make a living wage a right.

By this logic, we can also make education, housing, food, clothing, and all sorts of other essentials a right. Without them, our right to either or all of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness would be violated. These are the very rights that are guaranteed in all Socialist states. It's the logic that leads people to believe that gay marriage is a right, and if we allow this logic to take hold, soon enough we'll be guaranteeing "rights" the way they do in Socialist nations.


Don P said...

The problem is that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. While the Declaration is important, it is not law, more of a position paper. Even Barak Obama recognizes (to his dismay) that the Constitution is one of negative actions, that is things the government may not do, more than things the government must do. That does not mean that you are wrong btw. The left clearly has little regard for what the Constitution actually says.

Anonymous said...

Socialism is what happens when the economy becomes depressed. It's not really socialism, it's our tax dollars at work. Have you looked to see what your tax dollars are doing lately? Most people haven't. Most people don't realize how much money there is out there. During economic times like this, there is more money to be had than ever. Because of the bailouts and economy, lenders are bending over backwards to bail you out too. Believe it or not, there is people getting tons of cheap money nowdays to start businesses, buy homes, pay off debt, and more. Bailout is for YOU

Anonymous said...

The substantial difference involves how a person interacts with others. Either our rights stop when they force someone else to do something, or give us something or they enable us to use coercion so that we can enjoy a "right" at the expense of some other person.

When we asster that we have a "right" to health care, at the very least we now have the right to force someone else to pay for it. We imply we have a new form of slavery, made possible by taxing a person's wages or wealth.

As far as gay marriage is concerned, lovers of big and bigger government are reaping the fruits of their error in allowing government to tax incomes and estates, for they gave to government the power to define who was married and who was not. Marriage was defined by God. Humans may have all manner of relationships, but only ones that comply with God's rules are marriages.

If you review the gay marriage advoates own words, you will see that most of their reasons for this demand is to enjoy the same tax breaks as married people do.

Having said this, it appears that gays want to be able to marry in order to legitimize their behavior. Sorry, folks, it can never work that way. Gays can copulate, gays can live together, gays can even raise children, but that does not make them married, and NEVER will. Gays deeply yearn for something they can never have: God's approval for what they are doing.

Jason Gillman said...

Annon... why leave your name off?

A simple and astute argument.

"Gays deeply yearn for something they can never have: God's approval for what they are doing."

Truly worth reprinting.

Anonymous said...

Separation of church and state. I bet many gays are atheist and don't yearn for anything related to God. They just want to have the same privileges under the law that married couples are afforded. What is one fundamental argument against gay marriage? People should have the right to do whatever they want as long as it does not impede on the rights of others, and neither the church nor government should be able to define marriage, the people getting married should.

Brian C. said...


I almost didn't bother commenting on this blog.

Please, name me ONE... ONE ONE ONE ONE ONE legitimate, NON religious reason that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Marriage is defined under law. I don't believe the bible and how it defines marriage. The Constitution doesn't mention the Bible. While some of our legal documents may mention God or creator, they don't say that it's the God or Creator as defined by King James... or by the Jews... or by Allah for that matter.

So, please, before you go off on a health care tangent trying to link that with Gay marriage...

Give me a reason, not religious, that gays should not be married. I have yet to hear one.

And btw, before I hear about prop 8 and the voters in California... explain what would have happened if interacial marriage had been put to a popular vote in the 50's. Rights arn't subject to a popular vote, that's why we're a Republic and not a Democracy.

Bush failed with his marriage amendment, so show me where in the constitution marriage is defined between a woman and a man only.

If marriage is just for having children, then why should people past child bearing years be allowed to marry, or people that don't want kids for that matter?

I'm sorry, but I have yet to hear a legitimate reason why gays should not have the right to marry.

Please... someone tell me why.

I'll come back and visit this post daily until I have a legitimate answer.

mike volpe said...

To the last anonymous poster, your argument is better suited for this piece...

Since that piece was about arguments against gay marriage. Here is a more refined argument that giving gays the right to marry creates a slippery slope toward socialism. That, of course, is in and of itself an argument, non religious, against gay marriage. That said, since you asked, here are a couple of non religious arguments.

The main non religious argument against gay marriage is that it is in and of itself a slippery slope. Once you redefine marriage to include gays, the definition will continue to be redefined over and over. If the combination of sexes is not important why is the number important. Unless you are ready to give every alternative lifestyle, polygamists, transvestites, swingers, etc. the same rights as gays, you can't open the door without opening it wide.

Second, marriage is primarily for child rearing. That's why the overwhelming number of marriages have children. The gay lifestyle has no children. As such, you want an inherently unequal relationship to have equality in marriage when marriage entails something that the gay lifestyle doesn't. One mother and mother is the best environment, everything else being equal, for children. That's the family unit and that is what marriage defines.

mike volpe said...

I'm sorry that last comment was for Brian C...

now then, to the anonymous poster.

There is no right to get married. There never was one. If there was Carmen Electra and I would be married because I would really like to marry her.

Brian C. said...


Thank you for attempting to answer my plea for a real reason to why Gays should not be allowed to marry... a NONreligious reason...

There are serious weaknesses to your argument.

Is marriage primarily for Child Rearing? Perhaps. Does it exclude non child bearing relationships? No. That's irrelevant really. Even still gay people are allowed to adopt (at least that trend is growing as it should be). In addition, Lesbian couples can definately get pregnant fiarly easily. Gay men can also eithe rfind a surrogate mother or adopt. So as you can see, to say child bearing is the primary reason is at least nonreligious, but quickly and easily defeated by simple logical arguments.

As for the "slippery slope" argument... I really don't know what to say! How is it that allowing people to marry promotes socialism? Now, government coming in and controling everything? Yes, that's socialism... absolutely. But... allowing people to marry that society might not agree with as a majority... again if that was the case than 'allowing' interacial marriage 40 some odd years ago was a step towards socialism... right? I mean... that's following your argument. People were not in support of it as a majority... but the gov. interveened and defended that right... like a good republic does. It does not allow a majority vote to take away people's rights. It defends them.

I give you credit for trying... but I don't think your argument really has any legs to stand on.

If marriage is primarily for child rearing, that still does not disqualify Gay couples as they can still have children.

Oh, and to say one mother, one father is 'best' is an opinion.

I'm sure that can be backed up by a right wing think tank study...
and can also be strongly argued against by a left wing think tank study! :)

mike volpe said...

My argument maybe weak but what you just said is even weaker Brian.

While some marriages don't have children, the overwhelming majority create children. The primary function then of marriage is child rearing. By allowing gays to marry, you are also distorting primary role of marriage. If marriage is not primarily for child rearing then what is its primary purpose? Just because some marriage don't lead to marriage doesn't mean you dismiss the idea that this is its primary role.

Gays maybe allowed to adopt but without someone having children there won't be any to adopt.

A mother and a father is the best option for children and that is not from some right wing think tank but rather nature. One man and one woman create the child and so naturally they are in best position to raise the child.

This is another thing that proponents of gay marriage want, to make gay couples the same as straight couples so they can adopt just as easily. If it doesn't matter whether a child has one mother and one father, then a gay family is no different than a straight one for raising children. That is nonsense. If a relationship can't create children, they are not, all other things being equal, in as good a position to raise the child. That is the crux of marriage and it is what folks like you want to pervert.

Anonymous said...

By Dr. Laura A. Haynes, Psychologist, Tustin, California

October 5, 2008

Many people have heard that homosexuality is largely genetically determined,homosexual relationships are essentially the same as heterosexual relationships except for the gender of the partners, homosexual parenting and heterosexual parenting are no different in their affects on children, and homosexual marriage will decrease stigma and thereby increase mental health in our society. A social science perspective and research review give a dramatically different picture.

Some say it does not matter who is loving children as long as they are loved. I saw a resume written by a male homosexual couple seeking a birthmother to give her baby to them to adopt. The heading was, “Your Child Will Have Two Loving Dads.” An unspoken consequence was, “Your Child Will Be Motherless.” It is hard to imagine the experience of a child who never had a mother or never had a father. Some psychotherapists who treat children of same sex couples are reporting that the children do long for the gendered parent they do not have.

How can two mothers, no matter how well they may parent, welcome a son into the deep bonding fellowship of men, give him a parent who has both a masculine soul and a masculine body integrated in one person with whom he can identify, show him how to be a man, give him a primary male parent in his family daily with whom to grow up and form a lifelong loving bond? How can two men provide comparable for a girl?

A same sex couple is inherently deficient in ability to prepare a child for the future heterosexual married life that the vast majority of children will aspire to as adults. Two parents of the same sex cannot teach a child how to relate deeply to both sexes in the same way that growing up with married parents—one of each sex—can.

Nature is narrow; it sets up every child to have a mother and a father. Same sex marriages intentionally alter the natural situation and deprive a child of one of his or her parents. A child is left with a black hole where a mother or father should be. If we were to interject an equivalent new change into the mating and child rearing practices of some members of another species, environmentalists would be screaming (Harris). That some adults intentionally set up a child to be motherless or fatherless because they want to be parents is profound. That a whole society would do it is very profound.

A grave concern for the children is the instability of same sex relationships across cultures. In one large study in America and Canada (Jay and Young, 1997), 38 percent of male homosexuals said the longest relationship they had ever had was less than one year. The average length of longest relationship and the most frequent response for the men was 2 years. The longest relationship for lesbians was on average thirty-eight months (Jay and Young, 1979, pp. 340, 302).

By contrast, the highly regarded National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS) reported that most Americans marry, and the average length of marriage for Americans in general is a quarter century (Laumann, et al., 1994, p. 106).

Legalized homosexual unions have a much higher divorce rate than heterosexual unions. In Sweden, homosexual unions have a dissolution rate fifty percent higher than heterosexual unions. In Norway and Sweden, lesbian unions have a dissolution rate about double that of male homosexuals, and this finding persists when length of relationship and other demographic variables are controlled (Andersson, et al, 2006).

The Netherlands has had registered partnerships since 1998 and full homosexual marriage since 2001. Even so, homosexuals in the Netherlands less frequently reported having a steady sexual partner compared to heterosexuals (Sandfort, Graaf, and Bijl, 2001, p. 4; Bailey, 1999). The average range of male homosexual relationships in the Netherlands was 9 months to 2 years, with an average of only 17 months (Xiridou, 2003). The option to marry has not fixed the instability of homosexual relationships.

It may be that those who congratulate themselves on smashing centuries of tradition have done so for couples that are soon parted and leave children with the double tragedy both of being motherless or fatherless and of coming from parted parents.

Sexual promiscuity, particularly random sex with strangers, is high for both sexes of homosexuals, and especially for male homosexuals. The National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS) found that the mean number of lifetime partners since the age of 18 for men who never had same-gender sex was 15.7, but for men who ever had same sex partners it was 44.3, a rate three times as high. For women who never had same-gender sex, the number was 4.9, but for women who ever had same-gender sex, it was 19.7, more than four times as high (Laumann, et al., 1994, Table 8.4, p. 315).

A San Francisco study (Bell and Weinberg, 1978) found that thirty-eight percent of white lesbians had had sex with strangers, and 63 percent had had partners with whom they had sex only once. The same study reported that among white male homosexuals studied, 75 percent had had 100 or more sexual partners, 60 percent had had 250 or more sexual partners, 43 percent had had 500 or more sexual partners, and 28 percent, the largest subcategory, reported over 1,000 sexual partners (p. 308). Ninety-nine percent of white male homosexuals reported they had had sex with strangers, 79 percent reported over half their partners were strangers, and 70 percent said over half their partners were men with whom they had sex only once (pp. 308-309).

Because homosexuals more often have sex with strangers, they are at higher risk of being victims of violence (Dean, et al, 2000, p. 123).

Fidelity of the general American population presents a stark contrast. The National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS) found that 67 percent of men and 75 percent of women surveyed had had only one sex partner in the past year (Michael, et al., 1994, p. 102). Heterosexuals indicated very little interest in “kinky” or unusual sexual behaviors such as sado-masochism. Married people were the most physically pleased and emotionally satisfied with the sex they were having. The researchers reported, …nearly all Americans have a very modest number of partners, whether we ask them to enumerate their partners over their adult lifetime or in the past year. The number of partners varies little with education, race, or religion. Instead, it is determined by marital status or by whether a couple is living together. Once married, people tend to have one and only one partner, and those who are unmarried and living together are almost as likely to be faithful (p. 101).

Since fidelity in the general population holds true regardless of race or whether a couple is married or cohabiting, it is harder to argue infidelity among homosexuals (who make up about 1.4 to 2.7 percent of the general population) is due to stigma or unmarried status.

If homosexual relationships are fulfilling, why are there so many changes in partners? People who are at peace with themselves do not seek random sex with strangers. They do not engage in dangerous, death-dealing behavior.

A study of American and Canadian homosexuals (Jay and Young, 1979) found that 38 percent of lesbians had participated in “threesomes” at least once and 16 percent of lesbians had taken part in orgies or had group sex (p. 534). Among the male homosexuals, 77 percent had participated in “threesomes” at least once (p. 587), 59 percent had taken part in orgies or had group sex (p. 587), 38 percent had taken part in sadomasochism at least once (p. 555), 23 percent had practiced urination in association with sex (p. 555), 24 percent had paid for sex (p. 260), and 13 percent admitted to having practiced bestiality (p. 555). The San Francisco male homosexual study reported 27 percent had paid for sex, and 25 percent had been paid for sex (p. 311).

There have long been rumors of pedophilia (adults having sex with pre-pubescent children) and hebephilia (adults having sex with post-pubescent children) by homosexuals.

The San Francisco study reported 25 percent of the white male homosexuals in their sample admitted they had had sex with partners who were 16 or younger when the respondent was 21 or older (p. 311). This is criminal behavior in California. In a study of American and Canadian homosexuals, 23 percent of respondents admitted to having had sex with youths between the ages of 13 and 15, again a practice that in California is criminal, and 19 percent felt positive about sexual activity with this age group (p. 275-276). Interestingly, 50 percent of the male respondents had their first sex when aged 15 or younger (p. 107), and 20 percent of the females did also (p. 52). Many of the males experienced negative feelings about their first sexual encounter that became more positive later (p. 107).

Not all homosexuals engage in these practices. Some homosexuals condemn these practices, but many, including some gay activist leaders, openly praise them. It should be of huge concern that the stated goal of gay activists is to have the gay lifestyle brought fully into the mainstream of society and everyday living, and homosexual marriage does that.

Gay researchers (McWhierter and Mattison, 1984) studied 156 homosexual male couples that had been together between one and thirty-seven years. They found that one hundred per cent of the couples had infidelity within the first five years. Couples were still together past the ten year mark only if they accepted the painful reality of infidelity in their relationship. The gay researchers said, “In fact, more than 85 percent of the couples report that their greatest relationship problems center on outside relationships, sexual and nonsexual” (p. 256). Some couples arrive at agreements or rules for outside sexual relationships with “anguish, pain, hurt, and heartache” (p. 258). Further, they said, “Our observations lead us to think that these rules are attempts at control in an area that continues to be an elusive source of anxiety and fear for most couples. They feel that the sexual monster inside of each of us needs bridling. We do not trust it in our partners, and least of all in ourselves” (p. 259).

In the San Francisco study, most men who were in a relationship were in an open relationship. They “were not happy with their circumstances, however, and tended (despite spending a fair amount of time at home) to seek satisfactions with people outside their partnership. For example, the Open-Coupled men did more cruising than average” (p. 221-222, 346).

By legalizing same sex marriage, the California Supreme Court has just institutionalized open marriage.

It is not the case that homosexual couples are fine with this infidelity or that it is just heterosexuals who think it makes for anguish and insecurity in relationships. It’s not pretty for the partners, and how secure and safe can it be for children? And do we really want to encourage more young people to experiment with taking their lives down this path of anguish and heartache, disease, and early death by putting society’s stamp of approval and equality on it? Is it really good for society to bring this kind of relating into its mainstream?

Relationships that are exclusive, unconditional, and permanent permit the security for people to take the risk of deepening self-revelation over years. Relationships where affection is spread over many people render marriage meaningless. They may be pleasurable to some degree in the short run but do not lead to deepening relationships and fulfillment of deepest human need. They do not provide a secure nest for adults or children.

Further, from a medical standpoint alone, gay male sexual relationships are inherently unhealthy and disordered. Anal intercourse inherently sets up vulnerability to anal tears and bleeding, disease, and early death in a way that is not inherently the same for vaginal intercourse (“Ten Things Gay Men Should Discuss with Their Health Care Providers” from the Gay Lesbian Medical Assoc. website; Dean, et al, 2000). According to a report in the International Journal of Epidemiology (Hogg, et al, 1997), “In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday.” Homosexual marriage subjects children to greater risk of parental illness and death. It supports young men to head down an unhealthy and potentially deadly path.

Research has further found that homosexuals of both genders and across cultures have a high rate of drug abuse and/or dependence. (Jay and Young, 1979; Dean, et al, 2000; “Ten Things Gay Men Should Discuss with Their Health Care Providers”; Fergusson, et al, 1999; Sandfort, et al, 2001; Bailey, 1999).

Also across cultures, suicidality is a significant problem. Two large U.S. studies both found that about 40 percent of homosexuals of both genders had either attempted or seriously considered suicide (Jay and Young, 1979; Bell and Weinberg, 1978, p. 450). Other highly regarded studies also confirm the problem (Fergusson, 1999; Herrell, 1999; Bailey., 1999; Sagher and Robins, 1973). Since the problem was found in San Francisco (Bell and Weinberg, 1978) and New Zealand (Sagher and Robins, 1973), among the most gaysupportive areas in the world, it is difficult to argue that higher homosexual suicide rates are explained solely or primarily by social stigmatization. Two-thirds of suicidal behavior followed relationship break-up in the New Zealand study (Sagher and Robins, 1973). The San Francisco study concluded, “Suicidal ideation and suicide attempts are apt to occur at the time of the breakdown or dissolution of a significant ‘couple’ relationship” (Bell and Weinberg, 1978, p. 216, 457).

An additional characteristic of homosexual relationships is a high prevalence of partner abuse (Greenwood, et al, 2002; Tjaden, et al., 1999, p. 413).

Large, well designed studies found significant evidence across cultures that growing up in an urban area is associated with more homosexuality (Laumann et al., 1994, p308-309, a large study in the U.S.; Frisch and Hviid, 2006, a study of 2 million Danes). The large and well designed National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS) (Laumann et al., 1994) found social attitudes appear not only to allow homosexuality to develop but to elicit it. It is well documented that adult homosexuals tend to migrate toward more urban areas. What this study found, however, was that males who lived in urban as opposed to rural areas at the ages of 14 and 16 were more likely to become homosexual.

The elicitation/opportunity hypothesis is the less obvious explanation. It runs counter to the more essentialist, biological views of homosexuality that are so widespread. It implies that the environment in which people grow up affects their sexuality in very basic ways. But this is exactly one way to read many of the patterns that we have found throughout this research. In fact, there is evidence for the effect of the degree of urbanization of residence while growing up on reported homosexuality. This effect is quite marked and strong for men and practically nonexistent for women…. Unlike current residence, residence at age fourteen or sixteen is very unlikely to be the result of a choice by the respondent based on sexual preference” (p 309).

The study of 2 million people in Denmark found being born in the capital area as opposed to rural areas was associated with higher rates of homosexuality for both males and females. The U.S. study also found that “women who have graduated from college always report the highest level of same-gender sexuality” (p. 309). “Higher levels of education are associated with greater social and sexual liberalism…and with greater sexual experimentation” (p. 310).

These findings run counter to a common belief in the general public that it has been proven that homosexuality is largely genetically determined. The official stance of many major mental health professional associations is that there currently is no consensus that this is so (American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, National Association for Social Workers, and California Psychological Association in their Amicus Brief to the California Supreme Court in re. of marriage, 2007, p. 33).

Environments that appear to increase homosexuality include not only urban areas and colleges, but also families headed by homosexual parents (Green et al, 1986; Bailey, et al, 1995; Tasker and Glombok, 1995; Lerner and Nagai, 2001, p. 60). One study of children of homosexual parents reported (Miller, 1979), “Evidence in the children’s biographies pointed to problems of sexual acting out,” including premarital pregnancies, abortions, prostitution, etc. (reported in Lerner and Nagai, p. 51). But pro-gay researchers claim no differences in outcomes for children from heterosexual or homosexual parenting, and they consider a higher incidence of homosexuality in children of homosexual parents to be of no consequence.

Numerous qualified research investigators, including some leading pro-gay researchers who have conducted homosexual parenting studies, have found that studies on the question of homosexual parenting have serious methodological flaws and that no generalizations can be drawn from them. (Patterson, 2000, 2004; Schumm, 2004; Lerner and Nagai, 2001; Nock, 2001, Fitzgerald, 1999; Sears,1994; and Rekers and Kilgus, 2002).

Lerner and Nagai (2001) reviewed 49 original research studies on homosexual and heterosexual parenting and found that seriously inappropriate use of statistical methods resulted in a 77% to 92% probability (varying by study) of finding no differences due to error and chance alone. As Lerner and Nagai point out, “Ironically, each poorly executed research step, such as setting up comparison groups, sampling, measurement, and statistical analyses, increases the likelihood of finding no difference” (p. 21).

Many professional mental health organizations in the U.S. and California agree that “relatively few studies have directly examined gay fathers” (Amicus Brief, p. 29).

Reker’s review of the reviews on same-sex parenting points out that some studies document distress and problems from the children’s perspective, while other studies that only ask homosexual parents to report on their own parenting selectively do not ask about these variables (Rekers, 2004, p 58).

Nock (2001) observed there is no basis by which to know whether the benefits of marriage “are the result of marriage, per se, or heterosexual marriage” (p. 41). Additionally, he noted the assertion that the only difficulties suffered by children of same sex parents are the result of prejudice remains untested (p. 42).

Research has not made the case that same sex lifestyle and relationships are as healthy for adults and young people or as healthy for raising children.

Is it a social good to encourage more young people to experiment with going down a path that includes higher rates of disease, early death, drug abuse or dependency, partner battering, violence from sex with strangers, never having children or having children who will be motherless or fatherless and who will be at higher risk of going down the same path, never having a long term relationship or having one only with anguish and heartache over infidelity or with more dependency that can become life-threatening, many relationship breakups, or suicidality? How should we, as members of our society, direct our compassion? Wouldn’t preventative measures be in order? Shouldn’t we warn against, not enable experimenting with, taking this path?

At present, California curriculum includes units about families, beginning in kindergarten. The legalization of same-sex marriage opens the door for children from kindergarten on up to be taught that the state of California validates that marrying someone of the same sex is as legal and acceptable an option for them as marrying someone of the opposite sex. How would this impact required curriculum units such as family, health, values, child development, sex education, and history? Based on present research showing that the liberal sexual attitudes in colleges not only allow but actually elicit homosexuality, we should expect that extending education about liberal sexual attitudes down through kindergarten will elicit many more of our children to go down the path of homosexuality.

Some parents who have raised their children in traditional sexual values have been shocked at how much those values have changed when their children went to public high school or college. The same effect will begin in kindergarten if same-sex marriage is allowed to stand in California, and the strong precedent in California will be used to extend the changes across the U.S.

Marriage cannot fix disordered relationships. Is it good for children to be placed at higher risk of growing up with such conditions and behaviors in their parents? Does it improve mental health to tell society that these kinds of relationships are equal, approved, or healthy? Is it a social good to bring relationships with these qualities at higher rates into the mainstream of society?

There are good reasons why all known societies throughout the history of humankind and all major world religions (World Religions and Same-Sex Marriage, 2002), have never approved same sex marriage, with the only exceptions occurring in the last millisecond in human history. As much as we may empathize with some homosexuals who may want to marry or parent, it is unethical to experiment with children and to send our young people down a path that places them in harm’s way. Our children must trump the wishes of some adults. It is a social good to protect marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Anonymous said...

Gays have been screaming they are born with the same-sex attraction for decades and for decades, science has disagreed.

If their one and only argument for decades has been wrong from the outset, why, on this fact alone, should society redefine marriage, especially when gays already have the exact same benefits of marriage without the name?

Brian, are you of the opinion that any group, no matter how fringe, should be able to redefine marriage? If not, what fringe group crosses the line for you? That is, where do you draw the line on redefining marriage?

Brian C. said...

Wow... lot's of great responses! lol. hahaha. I love a good debate. Maybe I'm not you're typical 'liberal.'

I think we need a separate forum dedicated TOTALLY to this debate.

Ok... well, I would love to respond to every point in the scientific study comment, but that would be a little long. Man... you posted a whole study on the comments! hahaha. Ok, I admit I only read about half... but again all those points can be debated. Tell you what, I’ll just go in chronological order with responses.

Ok, start with Mike.

Mike. Here’s what you said:
“While some marriages don't have children, the overwhelming majority create children. The primary function then of marriage is child rearing. By allowing gays to marry, you are also distorting primary role of marriage.”

Now, through simple logic, this is saying that since two gay people cannot fertilize each other that if they marry the are: “distorting (the) primary role of marriage.”

By that same logic… allowing two straight people who are infertile to marry, since they cannot fertilize each other, is “distorting (the) primary role of marriage.”

By allowing two older straight people who are past their child rearing years and wish to remarry, you are “distorting (the) primary role of marriage.”

By allowing two straight people who do not wish to have children to marry, you are “distorting (the) primary role of marriage.”

That is why this argument does not hold up. Do I wish to have kids one day? Yes. Did I marry my wife to have children with her? Not in and of itself.



Yes… that’s why I married! Because I found someone I love and wish to spend the rest of my life with.

That’s why the marriage vows don’t mention anything about having children.

Ok… now to respond to the other argument you posted.

“If a relationship can't create children, they are not, all other things being equal, in as good a position to raise the child.”

Although I’ve clearly and completely debunked the entire child bearing argument… I want you to bring this argument to my gay cousin and her girlfriend. They took care of another cousin’s (mine by law and theirs by blood) child who was all but abandoned whilst living in his parent’s house. You tell them that they aren’t as good at raising a child since their sexual preference is with the same sex. You explain to them that even though they spend several years ensuring that child was loved, cared for, fed, taken to school, (even kept a social life!) that it was somehow subpar to a straight couple’s loving guidance. All things being equal of course.

See, that’s the problem with you people and you’re arguments against gay marriage and apparently the gay lifestyle. You’re not gay yourselves. Gay people aren’t like you and therefore don’t deserve the same privileges you have.

And by the way… what Right Wing think tank sponsored the ‘scientific study’ that says being gay is a choice? Please… I’d like to see what mega church was behind the funding for that one. I guess that means that the gay animals in nature ‘decided’ to be that way too then right?

I can’t wait for the scientific study that discovers the gay gene. Then, you’ll be saying that someone is ‘genetically unqualified’ for marriage, child rearing, and the likes. Oh… I didn’t know ‘God’ would ‘create’ someone who was ‘born to be evil’


“Brian, are you of the opinion that any group, no matter how fringe, should be able to redefine marriage? If not, what fringe group crosses the line for you? That is, where do you draw the line on redefining marriage?”

And how would you define ‘fringe’ B? A group that disagrees with what you consider hunkey dorey?  I don’t understand what you mean by ‘fringe’ because I define fringe as in the wacko evangelicals who think anyone that doesn’t believe exactly what they believe is destined to burn for all eternity. To me, that’s fringe.

Again, if you’re going Michael Savage on me with this whole ‘gay conspiracy’ thing… you need to start using your brain instead of just accepting what the Right Wing Talking Heads tell you to think.

Ahhh, now that that’s over with… I’ll actually try answering your question as you probably intended to ask it but couldn’t figure out how to ask a question that’s not phrased in the form of a ‘Vast left wing conspiracy.’

I say, let people decide for themselves what they want for themselves and stop forcing your opinions and beliefs on other people. And that goes with everything. If a woman wants an abortion, then it’s between her, the baby, and what ever god she serves. I may or may not agree with her… I may or may not agree with the lesbian who decides she wants to spend everynight with another female… but either way… I take care of myself and believe what I want and let other do the same. If my co-corker at work wants to take the bible literally and thinks the earth is 10,000 years old.. fine. Whatever.

Now… will I debate them on their decisions if I disagree AND they want to debate?


Just like we’re doing now.

You’re ball…

mike volpe said...

Brian, the study was posted by someone else however I think it enhances the piece. I really didn't read it at all.

As to your first point, we are going round and round on the same thing, we will have to agree to disagree. A straight couple that can't have children is the exception to the rule. A gay couple that can't have children is the rule. As such, comparing the two is totally fallacious. You disagree but I think going over this same point is silly. You have made your point. I have made mine and let the audience decide who makes the better point.

As to taking care of children, of course, everything else being equal, a mother and a father is the best environment. Your gay cousin is irrelevant. I didn't say that gay people can't be good parents. Everything else being equal they aren't as good a parents as a straight couple. You dismiss that the mother and the father have separate and specific roles in child rearing. You think that the roles are simply for parents. They aren't. The mother has a role and the father has a role.

As for the rest of your comments you just try and attack others. You fail to answer the central question. If gay marriage is allowed how can it stop there? Are you ready to allow polygamy, swingers, and transvestites to marry? If not, what makes their relationships different than gays? That is the central argument of mine against gay marriage and it is one you have conveniently not touched throughout this debate. Instead you focus on saying that gays are as good a parents as straights because some gay cousin says so.

Brian C. said...


Thanks for writing back and keeping the debate going. Its fun as always and I really hope a lot of people do indeed read this and think about the issue. And plus, who doesn’t love debating? Lol.

Ok, now back on topic.

Yes, I did see the study was posted by someone else… My main thing with talking about that was that it’s really annoying when posters do that. They should start a new post in their own blogs, or of course post the link. Personally, I often check links posted in a comment when there’s a short description. But, bottom line, I didn’t buy anything that study said.

Ok, I think I have to agree with your call to disagree… this is more annoying than Hillary and Barrack arguing who’s health plan is better during the umpteenth democratic debate. Lol. (ok, we get it… Hillary will charge a fine and Obama won’t cover 20,000,000!)

Agree to Disagree, is agreed.

(I think we should do our own blog and have an ongoing debate that people can read and comment on. With advertisements, we could make some money? Trust me… Although extremely liberal, I’m also extremely capitalist.)

Ok, I’m going to quote you again, and tear apart everything you just said right before your eyes.

“As to taking care of children, of course, everything else being equal, a mother and a father is the best environment.”

Why? Why is that the best environment? What makes it so much better? What if the child is gay? Is it easier for a gay child to come out to his straight parents or gay parents? When you say environment, you increase the focus from ‘roles’ to… well… environment.

Environment as in housing? Neighbourhood? Social setting? I’m not about to go into the culture or class war here… but, ‘everything else being equal,’ things turn out to be equal.

“Your gay cousin is irrelevant.”
To this situation, not hardly! It’s very prime example of how well a gay couple can raise a child, ‘everything else being equal.’ I gave you a real life situation that I saw happen from people I know who I feel can strongly represent the point. I can give you many, many, MANY examples of straight couple failing miserably at parenthood, regardless of the reason. I thought this example especially fitting since they directly ‘took over’ for a straight couple. Btw, it wasn’t divorce… that straight couple is still married I believe.

“I didn't say that gay people can't be good parents. Everything else being equal they aren't as good a parents as a straight couple.”

No, you haven’t directly said that gay people can’t be good parents… but your focus is that they’re “not as good” all things being equal. That’s your opinion, not a factual statement. How do you define ‘good’ parenting? Are lower income couples “not as good” as higher income. But, according to your argument, all things aren’t equal so it doesn’t count. As a matter of fact, in the real world, when are all things really equal? Should we only allow the best of the best to have children?

“You dismiss that the mother and the father have separate and specific roles in child rearing. You think that the roles are simply for parents. They aren't. The mother has a role and the father has a role.”

I think the best way for me to characterize how I feel about this is to say that each parent tends to take on a role similar to how they themselves were raised. Is the mother the nurturer? Maybe in some cases… But what if she’s the one working full time plus 20 hours and the husband is a stay at home dad? Is that kinda role reversal permitted? When me and my wife babysit, she takes on the role of disciplinarian, I tend to do more entertaining… Is that backwards? Does the mother have a role? Yes. Does the father? Yes! Are they defined? No. Are they gender specific, absolutely not. No matter what definition you can give me as to what role a mother or father has in raising a child, I can give you a counter example.

I think your main problem with gay marriage is the fact that it does seem to fit your perfect model of how things should be.

“As for the rest of your comments you just try and attack others. You fail to answer the central question. If gay marriage is allowed how can it stop there? Are you ready to allow polygamy, swingers, and transvestites to marry? If not, what makes their relationships different than gays? That is the central argument of mine against gay marriage and it is one you have conveniently not touched throughout this debate. Instead you focus on saying that gays are as good a parents as straights because some gay cousin says so.”

Yes, I do attack others who need attacking. Close-minded individuals who refuse to admit when they’re wrong. Who refuse to debate something while at the same time forcing their view on others. And then, hypocrites… don’t get me started on that.

If gay marriage is allowed, why should it stop there? Polygamy? What’s wrong with it? Islam allows it. So do some other religions, including the Christianity… that is assuming you don’t cherry pick the bible and believe and follow all the verses in it. It would seem to be a stronger family unit with more mothers to support the structure right?

I mean, do I support Polygamy? No… but there are arguments for it. Do I think the wild Mormon sects forcing young children to marry old men are in the green? NO NO NO NO. Why is it wrong? The polygamy is not the problem per se, nor is the age difference EXCEPT for the underage girls who are forced to marry. That is obviously not right because it is forcing someone to do something. Any time you have to force someone to do something… mind you, not ACCEPT something, but do something… you’re infringing on their Rights… and that’s wrong.

Swingers? Well, again, are both parties willing and happy with it? Who am I to step and say that I disagree, and since I disagree they are not allowed to continue what they’re doing??

Transvestites? What did they ever do to you? Because of their sexual orientation, they’re not allowed to legally be recognized with the person they love? Why? Who are we to set the moral standard? As long as it’s not infringing on someone’s Rights!

So, do you understand my point?

“If it doesn’t infringe on another’s Rights, who are we to set a moral standard and stop other’s from doing something because they love someone else? And, the two parties involved are both voluntarily participating?”

I can keep going if you can. Thank you for the challenging debate.

What’s really funny?

When it comes to raising children, me and my wife plan to have me working and her a stay at home mom…

Such a liberal view, such a traditional type of marriage. However, my wife is not subservient to me, she is my equal.

Care to continue the debate?? I’ve got this blog on speed dial to check is anyone dare challenges me to a debate. Bwa hahaha.

mike volpe said...

Again, I am glad you are honest. If your position is that any and all relationships are open for marriage that is a radical altering of an institution that has been around in one form for thousands of years. Such a radical change is full of unintended consequences.

As to mother and father having specific roles, you are basically denying nature. First, if it takes one mother and one father to have the child, it is natural to have one mother and one father raise the child.

Of course, the mother and father have specific roles. The mother passes down feminine traits and the father, masculine. Men and women are not the same, and raising a child is no different than anything else. Like I said, everything else being equal, one mother and one father is best.

There are all sorts of studies that link all sorts of behavioral problems with a lack of mother and/or a lack of father. That's because without one or the other parent, the child misses something in their development.

your assertion that any relationship is all right for marriage totally denies that marriage is primarily a child rearing enterprise. You think it is a relationship enterprise, but that short changes the institutiion. It was never meant merely to recognize a union but to recognize the union as the bedrock of a family.

Jean said...

Thank you for posting the great content…I was looking for something like this…I found it quiet interesting, hopefully you will keep posting such blogs….Keep sharing

x ray technician - x ray technician training